Montana: "Let's make stupidity mandatory!"

[Frank Krygowski]

Some Montana legislators are wanting to make wrong-way riding mandatory.

https://www.cyclingwest.com/news/montana-proposes-bill-to-force-cyclists-to-ride-the-wrong-way-in-traffic/

Data's quite clear that riding facing traffic is far more dangerous than
riding the same direction as other traffic.

I hope - and predict - that this bill will never make it out of committee.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 13:13:28 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Some Montana legislators are wanting to make wrong-way riding mandatory.
https://www.cyclingwest.com/news/montana-proposes-bill-to-force-cyclists-to-ride-the-wrong-way-in-traffic/
Data's quite clear that riding facing traffic is far more dangerous than
riding the same direction as other traffic.
I hope - and predict - that this bill will never make it out of committee.

Like this?
<https://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2023/08/10/Guinness-World-Records-distance-cycling-backward-RAGBRAI/5631691686278/>

The bill will probably instantly die when cost of installing the
necessary signage is disclosed. I searched for a road sign with
someone riding a bicycle backwards but couldn't find anything.

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 13:13:28 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Some Montana legislators are wanting to make wrong-way riding mandatory.
https://www.cyclingwest.com/news/montana-proposes-bill-to-force-cyclists-to-ride-the-wrong-way-in-traffic/
Data's quite clear that riding facing traffic is far more dangerous than
riding the same direction as other traffic.
I hope - and predict - that this bill will never make it out of committee.

Like this?
<https://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2023/08/10/Guinness-World-Records-distance-cycling-backward-RAGBRAI/5631691686278/>
The bill will probably instantly die when cost of installing the
necessary signage is disclosed. I searched for a road sign with
someone riding a bicycle backwards but couldn't find anything.

Thanks for the video.
Yes, that's a thing and especially impressive because I
can't do it.

But do you want to do it?

Loading Image...
The obvious question is about braking. Rider cg is unfavorable!

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[cyclintom]

Post by Frank Krygowski
Some Montana legislators are wanting to make wrong-way riding mandatory.
https://www.cyclingwest.com/news/montana-proposes-bill-to-force-cyclists-to-ride-the-wrong-way-in-traffic/
Data's quite clear that riding facing traffic is far more dangerous than
riding the same direction as other traffic.
I hope - and predict - that this bill will never make it out of committee.

Frank, somewhere I remember seeing a chart that showed the relationship between collision speed with a car and percentage of fatalities amoung cyclists.

It showed veryt few deaths at or below 15 mph, slightly higher at 25 and nearly 100% fatality rates at 35 mph aned above.

Do you remember seeing that graph and do you have a reference for it?

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by cyclintom

Post by Frank Krygowski
Some Montana legislators are wanting to make wrong-way riding mandatory.
https://www.cyclingwest.com/news/montana-proposes-bill-to-force-cyclists-to-ride-the-wrong-way-in-traffic/
Data's quite clear that riding facing traffic is far more dangerous than
riding the same direction as other traffic.
I hope - and predict - that this bill will never make it out of committee.

Frank, somewhere I remember seeing a chart that showed the relationship between collision speed with a car and percentage of fatalities amoung cyclists.
It showed veryt few deaths at or below 15 mph, slightly higher at 25 and nearly 100% fatality rates at 35 mph aned above.
Do you remember seeing that graph and do you have a reference for it?

"Can Reducing Speed Limits Reduce Fatal Bicycle and Pedestrian
Crashes?"
<https://www.peoplepoweredmovement.org/can-reducing-speed-limits-reduce-fatal-bicycle-and-pedestrian-crashes/>

The risk of death is approximately:
10% at 23 mph
25% at 32 mph
50% at 42 mph
75% at 50 mph
90% at 58 mph

The risk of severe injury is approximately:
10% at 16 mph
25% at 23 mph
50% at 31 mph
75% at 39 mph
90% at 46 mph

Found in 2 minutes using Google search.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by cyclintom

Post by Frank Krygowski
Some Montana legislators are wanting to make wrong-way riding mandatory.
https://www.cyclingwest.com/news/montana-proposes-bill-to-force-cyclists-to-ride-the-wrong-way-in-traffic/
Data's quite clear that riding facing traffic is far more dangerous than
riding the same direction as other traffic.
I hope - and predict - that this bill will never make it out of committee.

Frank, somewhere I remember seeing a chart that showed the relationship between collision speed with a car and percentage of fatalities amoung cyclists.
It showed veryt few deaths at or below 15 mph, slightly higher at 25 and nearly 100% fatality rates at 35 mph aned above.
Do you remember seeing that graph and do you have a reference for it?

Jeff's response is probably what you're looking for.

This page by the League of American Bicyclists has related data,
https://data.bikeleague.org/new-nhtsa-data-speed-data-shows-lethal-legal-speed-limits-involved-in-most-pedestrian-and-bicyclist-deaths/
but it's not quite the same as what you seem to want, and its
unnecessarily complicated.

This page has interactive graphs that do the job nicely, but its for
pedestrians instead of cyclists:
https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicle-height-compounds-dangers-of-speed-for-pedestrians

The lower three graphs also deal with the effect of vehicle height,
showing that taller vehicles are more dangerous to pedestrians (and
probably bicyclists).

[Roger Merriman]

Post by Frank Krygowski
Some Montana legislators are wanting to make wrong-way riding mandatory.
https://www.cyclingwest.com/news/montana-proposes-bill-to-force-cyclists-to-ride-the-wrong-way-in-traffic/
Data's quite clear that riding facing traffic is far more dangerous than
riding the same direction as other traffic.
I hope - and predict - that this bill will never make it out of committee.

Mmm treat bikes as pedestrians yup I’m sure that’s going to work!

Roger Merriman

[NFN Smith]

Post by Roger Merriman

Post by Frank Krygowski
Some Montana legislators are wanting to make wrong-way riding mandatory.

Mmm treat bikes as pedestrians yup I’m sure that’s going to work!
Roger Merriman

That's really the issue, where the expectation is that a bicycle is a
toy and the rider should be treated as a pedestrian.

For non-riders (or novice riders), especially if they've been trained to
always *walk* facing traffic, there is frequently a fear of the speed of
vehicles approaching from the rear (and not visible) even if the speed
differential is far less than facing traffic.

For the purposes of public policy, this is an ongoing tension that
probably never be resolved, the difference between the bicycle being
regarded as a pedestrian and the bicycle regarded as a vehicle, and for
the latter, where despite the speed differential with motor vehicles,
the bike should have all the rights and responsibilities as a motorist.

When I'm a motorist, it really bothers me to see a bicycle riding in a
bike lane facing the traffic, because I know that if I wanted to be
malicious, I could simply pull into the bike lane. If the road has a
curb, then the cyclist is effectively pinned, where there's no ability
to escape in either direction, whether inability of jumping the curb, or
driving into facing traffic.

Something that I've noticed more recently is the effect of electric
vehicles, both scooters and bikes whose speeds are well in excess of
anything typical to a pedestrian on foot, and still going against
traffic in a bike lane. At that speed, far more dangerous than going
with the traffic.

Also, one further issue is approaching from an unexpected direction and
speed. Years ago, I was exiting a parking lot after dark, and looking
left for motor traffic, before turning right, and just as I was ready to
pull onto the street, and a BMX bike on the sidewalk riding at speed I
would call "decent" (although not excessive). I nearly ran into him,
because I wasn't looking for a vehicle coming from that direction or
speed, and the fact that it was dark (and he had no lights) made it even
harder to see him. And he was annoyed because I hadn't yielded him the
right of way.

Smith

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by NFN Smith

Post by Roger Merriman

Post by Frank Krygowski
Some Montana legislators are wanting to make wrong-way riding mandatory.

Mmm treat bikes as pedestrians yup I’m sure that’s going to work!
Roger Merriman

That's really the issue, where the expectation is that a bicycle is a
toy and the rider should be treated as a pedestrian.
For non-riders (or novice riders), especially if they've been trained to
always *walk* facing traffic, there is frequently a fear of the speed of
vehicles approaching from the rear (and not visible) even if the speed
differential is far less than facing traffic.
For the purposes of public policy, this is an ongoing tension that
probably never be resolved, the difference between the bicycle being
regarded as a pedestrian and the bicycle regarded as a vehicle, and for
the latter, where despite the speed differential with motor vehicles,
the bike should have all the rights and responsibilities as a motorist.
When I'm a motorist, it really bothers me to see a bicycle riding in a
bike lane facing the traffic, because I know that if I wanted to be
malicious, I could simply pull into the bike lane. If the road has a
curb, then the cyclist is effectively pinned, where there's no ability
to escape in either direction, whether inability of jumping the curb, or
driving into facing traffic.
Something that I've noticed more recently is the effect of electric
vehicles, both scooters and bikes whose speeds are well in excess of
anything typical to a pedestrian on foot, and still going against
traffic in a bike lane.  At that speed, far more dangerous than going
with the traffic.
Also, one further issue is approaching from an unexpected direction and
speed.  Years ago, I was exiting a parking lot after dark, and looking
left for motor traffic, before turning right, and just as I was ready to
pull onto the street, and a BMX bike on the sidewalk riding at speed I
would call "decent" (although not excessive).  I nearly ran into him,
because I wasn't looking for a vehicle coming from that direction or
speed, and the fact that it was dark (and he had no lights) made it even
harder to see him.  And he was annoyed because I hadn't yielded him the
right of way.

+1 to all that. Well said.

[NFN Smith]

Post by NFN Smith

Post by Frank Krygowski
Some Montana legislators are wanting to make wrong-way riding mandatory.

For non-riders (or novice riders), especially if they've been trained
to always *walk* facing traffic, there is frequently a fear of the
speed of vehicles approaching from the rear (and not visible) even if
the speed differential is far less than facing traffic.
For the purposes of public policy, this is an ongoing tension that
probably never be resolved, the difference between the bicycle being
regarded as a pedestrian and the bicycle regarded as a vehicle, and
for the latter, where despite the speed differential with motor
vehicles, the bike should have all the rights and responsibilities as
a motorist.

On reflection, something else that I could have mentioned is that in
this circumstance (especially Montana) is the common idea that roads are
for cars, and that anything that impedes that is considered to be evil,
and must be removed. In other words, "you're in the way, get off my
road!". I've seen aggressive motorists that go so far as to assert this
claim with "I pay taxes" (e.g. motor fuel).

One other effect of this that I've seen is that when I'm on my bike,
it's worth being cautious around cars that have a lot of stickers on the
back. It's not just the obvious ones that indicate that the motorist
may be hostile to cyclists, but multiple stickers (regardless of
content) may be an indicator of "turf marking" and where the drive is
proportionally less friendly to having a cyclist too close to their
vehicle. And sometimes, the implied aggressive behavior is little more
than mere bullying.

Smith

[John B.]

Post by NFN Smith

Post by NFN Smith

Post by Frank Krygowski
Some Montana legislators are wanting to make wrong-way riding mandatory.

For non-riders (or novice riders), especially if they've been trained
to always *walk* facing traffic, there is frequently a fear of the
speed of vehicles approaching from the rear (and not visible) even if
the speed differential is far less than facing traffic.
For the purposes of public policy, this is an ongoing tension that
probably never be resolved, the difference between the bicycle being
regarded as a pedestrian and the bicycle regarded as a vehicle, and
for the latter, where despite the speed differential with motor
vehicles, the bike should have all the rights and responsibilities as
a motorist.

On reflection, something else that I could have mentioned is that in
this circumstance (especially Montana) is the common idea that roads are
for cars, and that anything that impedes that is considered to be evil,
and must be removed. In other words, "you're in the way, get off my
road!". I've seen aggressive motorists that go so far as to assert this
claim with "I pay taxes" (e.g. motor fuel).
One other effect of this that I've seen is that when I'm on my bike,
it's worth being cautious around cars that have a lot of stickers on the
back. It's not just the obvious ones that indicate that the motorist
may be hostile to cyclists, but multiple stickers (regardless of
content) may be an indicator of "turf marking" and where the drive is
proportionally less friendly to having a cyclist too close to their
vehicle. And sometimes, the implied aggressive behavior is little more
than mere bullying.
Smith

One thing that it is important to remember is that in a conflict
between a bicycle and a auto the auto nearly always wins :-(
There is even a poem, dating from the early 1900's:

Here lies the body Of William Jay,
Who died maintaining His right of way.
He was in the right As he sped along,
But he's just as dead As if he'd been wrong.

[NFN Smith]

Post by John B.
One thing that it is important to remember is that in a conflict
between a bicycle and a auto the auto nearly always wins :-(
Here lies the body Of William Jay,
Who died maintaining His right of way.
He was in the right As he sped along,
But he's just as dead As if he'd been wrong.

Exactly. When I see turf-marking indications on a car, I go extra
carefully, and generally give them a little extra space.

Smith

[Wolfgang Strobl]

Am Wed, 15 Jan 2025 07:30:41 +0700 schrieb John B.

Post by John B.

Post by NFN Smith

Post by NFN Smith

Post by Frank Krygowski
Some Montana legislators are wanting to make wrong-way riding mandatory.

For non-riders (or novice riders), especially if they've been trained
to always *walk* facing traffic, there is frequently a fear of the
speed of vehicles approaching from the rear (and not visible) even if
the speed differential is far less than facing traffic.
For the purposes of public policy, this is an ongoing tension that
probably never be resolved, the difference between the bicycle being
regarded as a pedestrian and the bicycle regarded as a vehicle, and
for the latter, where despite the speed differential with motor
vehicles, the bike should have all the rights and responsibilities as
a motorist.

On reflection, something else that I could have mentioned is that in
this circumstance (especially Montana) is the common idea that roads are
for cars, and that anything that impedes that is considered to be evil,
and must be removed. In other words, "you're in the way, get off my
road!". I've seen aggressive motorists that go so far as to assert this
claim with "I pay taxes" (e.g. motor fuel).
One other effect of this that I've seen is that when I'm on my bike,
it's worth being cautious around cars that have a lot of stickers on the
back. It's not just the obvious ones that indicate that the motorist
may be hostile to cyclists, but multiple stickers (regardless of
content) may be an indicator of "turf marking" and where the drive is
proportionally less friendly to having a cyclist too close to their
vehicle. And sometimes, the implied aggressive behavior is little more
than mere bullying.
Smith

One thing that it is important to remember is that in a conflict
between a bicycle and a auto the auto nearly always wins :-(

That is a misconception. Cycling is not particularly dangerous, not even
in the vicinity of motorists who believe they have an exclusive right to
the road.

In terms of the risk of dying prematurely, cyclists in Germany at least
win by a wide margin. If they don't die of cancer in old age, people in
this country typically die as a result of a disease caused by a lack of
exercise: obesity, diabetes, heart attacks, cardiovascular diseases of
all kinds. There is hardly anything that protects against this as well
as intensive and frequent cycling. Compared to the number of deaths we
are talking about here, the deaths of cyclists are negligible. I can
provide figures for Germany if required, and I'm sure Frank has some for
the USA too.

Post by John B.
Here lies the body Of William Jay,
Who died maintaining His right of way.
He was in the right As he sped along,
But he's just as dead As if he'd been wrong.

Who wrote that, a supporter of slavery?

[cyclintom]

Post by Wolfgang Strobl
Am Wed, 15 Jan 2025 07:30:41 +0700 schrieb John B.

Post by John B.

Post by NFN Smith

Post by NFN Smith

Post by Frank Krygowski
Some Montana legislators are wanting to make wrong-way riding mandatory.

For non-riders (or novice riders), especially if they've been trained
to always *walk* facing traffic, there is frequently a fear of the
speed of vehicles approaching from the rear (and not visible) even if
the speed differential is far less than facing traffic.
For the purposes of public policy, this is an ongoing tension that
probably never be resolved, the difference between the bicycle being
regarded as a pedestrian and the bicycle regarded as a vehicle, and
for the latter, where despite the speed differential with motor
vehicles, the bike should have all the rights and responsibilities as
a motorist.

On reflection, something else that I could have mentioned is that in
this circumstance (especially Montana) is the common idea that roads are
for cars, and that anything that impedes that is considered to be evil,
and must be removed. In other words, "you're in the way, get off my
road!". I've seen aggressive motorists that go so far as to assert this
claim with "I pay taxes" (e.g. motor fuel).
One other effect of this that I've seen is that when I'm on my bike,
it's worth being cautious around cars that have a lot of stickers on the
back. It's not just the obvious ones that indicate that the motorist
may be hostile to cyclists, but multiple stickers (regardless of
content) may be an indicator of "turf marking" and where the drive is
proportionally less friendly to having a cyclist too close to their
vehicle. And sometimes, the implied aggressive behavior is little more
than mere bullying.
Smith

One thing that it is important to remember is that in a conflict
between a bicycle and a auto the auto nearly always wins :-(

That is a misconception. Cycling is not particularly dangerous, not even
in the vicinity of motorists who believe they have an exclusive right to
the road.
In terms of the risk of dying prematurely, cyclists in Germany at least
win by a wide margin. If they don't die of cancer in old age, people in
this country typically die as a result of a disease caused by a lack of
exercise: obesity, diabetes, heart attacks, cardiovascular diseases of
all kinds. There is hardly anything that protects against this as well
as intensive and frequent cycling. Compared to the number of deaths we
are talking about here, the deaths of cyclists are negligible. I can
provide figures for Germany if required, and I'm sure Frank has some for
the USA too.

Post by John B.
Here lies the body Of William Jay,
Who died maintaining His right of way.
He was in the right As he sped along,
But he's just as dead As if he'd been wrong.

Who wrote that, a supporter of slavery?

I am quite aware of that and wrote a study on that very point.

https://www.vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html

But you don't dare people to hit you. Frank will say that is not what he is doing, but if so the message he is sending is very garbled.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by John B.
One thing that it is important to remember is that in a conflict
between a bicycle and a auto the auto nearly always wins :-(
Here lies the body Of William Jay,
Who died maintaining His right of way.
He was in the right As he sped along,
But he's just as dead As if he'd been wrong.

It's a cute little poem, but like "always pretend you're invisible," its
useless as practical advice for a bicyclist.

A bicyclist who never used his right of way would be unable to
practically ride anywhere except on totally isolated bike paths.

[Roger Merriman]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
One thing that it is important to remember is that in a conflict
between a bicycle and a auto the auto nearly always wins :-(
Here lies the body Of William Jay,
Who died maintaining His right of way.
He was in the right As he sped along,
But he's just as dead As if he'd been wrong.

It's a cute little poem, but like "always pretend you're invisible," its
useless as practical advice for a bicyclist.
A bicyclist who never used his right of way would be unable to
practically ride anywhere except on totally isolated bike paths.

Well for road or utility cycling yes, and agreed about what one does with
if one isn’t seen by a motorist same with the value of mirrors or radar to
detect cars, what does one do with that information practically.

This said ride off road and don’t meet motorists generally and if you do
they tend to be rather slower, a 4x4 will gingerly for example drive along
the ridgeway, stuff that the MTB can absolutely fly along, even the Gravel
bike makes better progress.

Roger Merriman

[Catrike Ryder]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 10:51:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
One thing that it is important to remember is that in a conflict
between a bicycle and a auto the auto nearly always wins :-(
Here lies the body Of William Jay,
Who died maintaining His right of way.
He was in the right As he sped along,
But he's just as dead As if he'd been wrong.

It's a cute little poem, but like "always pretend you're invisible," its
useless as practical advice for a bicyclist.
A bicyclist who never used his right of way would be unable to
practically ride anywhere except on totally isolated bike paths.

What nonsense. I doubt there are any bicyclists who don't ride
anywhere they want providing it's legal. I know I always have.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[John B.]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 11:49:32 -0500, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 10:51:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
One thing that it is important to remember is that in a conflict
between a bicycle and a auto the auto nearly always wins :-(
Here lies the body Of William Jay,
Who died maintaining His right of way.
He was in the right As he sped along,
But he's just as dead As if he'd been wrong.

It's a cute little poem, but like "always pretend you're invisible," its
useless as practical advice for a bicyclist.
A bicyclist who never used his right of way would be unable to
practically ride anywhere except on totally isolated bike paths.

What nonsense. I doubt there are any bicyclists who don't ride
anywhere they want providing it's legal. I know I always have.

The problem isn't whether you use a "right of way" it is what happens
if the auto, truck, whatever, doesn't see you or simply ignores your
right of way?

I even posted reference to two women who seized the lane, as Frank
suggests.The truck apparently did every thing he could do to avoid
them but hit them. One woman and one baby killed in the collision.

Frank's reaction? "Oh, they did it wrong."

One might ask, "If doing it wrong causes your death how will you ever
learn how to do it correctly?"

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by John B.

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 10:51:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
One thing that it is important to remember is that in a conflict
between a bicycle and a auto the auto nearly always wins :-(
Here lies the body Of William Jay,
Who died maintaining His right of way.
He was in the right As he sped along,
But he's just as dead As if he'd been wrong.

It's a cute little poem, but like "always pretend you're invisible," its
useless as practical advice for a bicyclist.
A bicyclist who never used his right of way would be unable to
practically ride anywhere except on totally isolated bike paths.

The problem isn't whether you use a "right of way" it is what happens
if the auto, truck, whatever, doesn't see you or simply ignores your
right of way?
I even posted reference to two women who seized the lane, as Frank
suggests.The truck apparently did every thing he could do to avoid
them but hit them. One woman and one baby killed in the collision.
Frank's reaction? "Oh, they did it wrong."

That's true. As I recall, they were on a motor scooter and they pulled
directly out in front of a tractor trailer. Nobody here has ever
advocated that.

Post by John B.
One might ask, "If doing it wrong causes your death how will you ever
learn how to do it correctly?"

:-) Good question! How can anyone learn to do it correctly? My, what a
puzzle!

Answer: For the bare basics (all most people require) you might be able
to find some instruction online. Something like this, for example:
https://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred004.htm

You might try buying and reading a copy of _Street Smarts_ by John
Allen. It's a slim volume, but it actually has more detail than most
people need. (This really isn't rocket science, John.)

If you want videos instead of reading, you could go to
https://cyclingsavvy.org/ They have quite a bit of information
available online, both videos and well done animations.

If you want to become much more expert, or if you need even more
guidance - say, because you're really nervous about this - you could
sign up for a real live course from Cycling Savvy. And if you're not in
the U.S., there are similar organizations in places like Britain and
Canada, and probably other countries that offer instruction courses.
Google is your friend.

Finally, if you really want deep learning on these topics and
techniques, you can buy a copy of _Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin. He has
editions for drive-on-the-left places like Britain, and
drive-on-the-right places like U.S. and Canada.

Whatever you do, don't throw up your hands and pretend its impossible.
Try to remember that there are plenty of people competently and
confidently bicycling in conditions you pretend are impossible.

[John B.]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:54:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 10:51:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
One thing that it is important to remember is that in a conflict
between a bicycle and a auto the auto nearly always wins :-(
Here lies the body Of William Jay,
Who died maintaining His right of way.
He was in the right As he sped along,
But he's just as dead As if he'd been wrong.

It's a cute little poem, but like "always pretend you're invisible," its
useless as practical advice for a bicyclist.
A bicyclist who never used his right of way would be unable to
practically ride anywhere except on totally isolated bike paths.

The problem isn't whether you use a "right of way" it is what happens
if the auto, truck, whatever, doesn't see you or simply ignores your
right of way?
I even posted reference to two women who seized the lane, as Frank
suggests.The truck apparently did every thing he could do to avoid
them but hit them. One woman and one baby killed in the collision.
Frank's reaction? "Oh, they did it wrong."

That's true. As I recall, they were on a motor scooter and they pulled
directly out in front of a tractor trailer. Nobody here has ever
advocated that.

Nope, that's your interpretation. At that point in the main road a
truck would have been traveling at about 70 - 80 kph - long curve in
the main road. The motorbike drove out onto the main road, obviously
at a distance that they felt it safe to do so - just because they were
Thais, or women doesn't mean that they were stupid. But it wasn't far
enough.

But your explanation that "Oh! They didn't do it right" seems a bit
hard hearted. Do you mean that anyone that doesn't ride exactly as you
tell them to gets run over by trucks and your only comment is "Oh they
didn't do it right"

I think I prefer "William Jay", at least he meant well.

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
One might ask, "If doing it wrong causes your death how will you ever
learn how to do it correctly?"

:-) Good question! How can anyone learn to do it correctly? My, what a
puzzle!
Answer: For the bare basics (all most people require) you might be able
https://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred004.htm
You might try buying and reading a copy of _Street Smarts_ by John
Allen. It's a slim volume, but it actually has more detail than most
people need. (This really isn't rocket science, John.)
If you want videos instead of reading, you could go to
https://cyclingsavvy.org/ They have quite a bit of information
available online, both videos and well done animations.
If you want to become much more expert, or if you need even more
guidance - say, because you're really nervous about this - you could
sign up for a real live course from Cycling Savvy. And if you're not in
the U.S., there are similar organizations in places like Britain and
Canada, and probably other countries that offer instruction courses.
Google is your friend.
Finally, if you really want deep learning on these topics and
techniques, you can buy a copy of _Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin. He has
editions for drive-on-the-left places like Britain, and
drive-on-the-right places like U.S. and Canada.
Whatever you do, don't throw up your hands and pretend its impossible.
Try to remember that there are plenty of people competently and
confidently bicycling in conditions you pretend are impossible.

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:54:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 10:51:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
One thing that it is important to remember is that in a conflict
between a bicycle and a auto the auto nearly always wins :-(
Here lies the body Of William Jay,
Who died maintaining His right of way.
He was in the right As he sped along,
But he's just as dead As if he'd been wrong.

It's a cute little poem, but like "always pretend you're invisible," its
useless as practical advice for a bicyclist.
A bicyclist who never used his right of way would be unable to
practically ride anywhere except on totally isolated bike paths.

The problem isn't whether you use a "right of way" it is what happens
if the auto, truck, whatever, doesn't see you or simply ignores your
right of way?
I even posted reference to two women who seized the lane, as Frank
suggests.The truck apparently did every thing he could do to avoid
them but hit them. One woman and one baby killed in the collision.
Frank's reaction? "Oh, they did it wrong."

That's true. As I recall, they were on a motor scooter and they pulled
directly out in front of a tractor trailer. Nobody here has ever
advocated that.

Nope, that's your interpretation. At that point in the main road a
truck would have been traveling at about 70 - 80 kph - long curve in
the main road. The motorbike drove out onto the main road, obviously
at a distance that they felt it safe to do so - just because they were
Thais, or women doesn't mean that they were stupid. But it wasn't far
enough.
But your explanation that "Oh! They didn't do it right" seems a bit
hard hearted. Do you mean that anyone that doesn't ride exactly as you
tell them to gets run over by trucks and your only comment is "Oh they
didn't do it right"
I think I prefer "William Jay", at least he meant well.

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
One might ask, "If doing it wrong causes your death how will you ever
learn how to do it correctly?"

:-) Good question! How can anyone learn to do it correctly? My, what a
puzzle!
Answer: For the bare basics (all most people require) you might be able
https://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred004.htm
You might try buying and reading a copy of _Street Smarts_ by John
Allen. It's a slim volume, but it actually has more detail than most
people need. (This really isn't rocket science, John.)
If you want videos instead of reading, you could go to
https://cyclingsavvy.org/ They have quite a bit of information
available online, both videos and well done animations.
If you want to become much more expert, or if you need even more
guidance - say, because you're really nervous about this - you could
sign up for a real live course from Cycling Savvy. And if you're not in
the U.S., there are similar organizations in places like Britain and
Canada, and probably other countries that offer instruction courses.
Google is your friend.
Finally, if you really want deep learning on these topics and
techniques, you can buy a copy of _Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin. He has
editions for drive-on-the-left places like Britain, and
drive-on-the-right places like U.S. and Canada.
Whatever you do, don't throw up your hands and pretend its impossible.
Try to remember that there are plenty of people competently and
confidently bicycling in conditions you pretend are impossible.

Rear end collisions are pretty common. Thank goodness that most of
them don't involve bicycles.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:54:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 10:51:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
One thing that it is important to remember is that in a conflict
between a bicycle and a auto the auto nearly always wins :-(
Here lies the body Of William Jay,
Who died maintaining His right of way.
He was in the right As he sped along,
But he's just as dead As if he'd been wrong.

It's a cute little poem, but like "always pretend you're invisible," its
useless as practical advice for a bicyclist.
A bicyclist who never used his right of way would be unable to
practically ride anywhere except on totally isolated bike paths.

The problem isn't whether you use a "right of way" it is what happens
if the auto, truck, whatever, doesn't see you or simply ignores your
right of way?
I even posted reference to two women who seized the lane, as Frank
suggests.The truck apparently did every thing he could do to avoid
them but hit them. One woman and one baby killed in the collision.
Frank's reaction? "Oh, they did it wrong."

That's true. As I recall, they were on a motor scooter and they pulled
directly out in front of a tractor trailer. Nobody here has ever
advocated that.

Nope, that's your interpretation. At that point in the main road a
truck would have been traveling at about 70 - 80 kph - long curve in
the main road. The motorbike drove out onto the main road, obviously
at a distance that they felt it safe to do so - just because they were
Thais, or women doesn't mean that they were stupid. But it wasn't far
enough.

Yes. They obviously didn't do it right. You can't seriously be claiming
they did it right if they were killed!

Post by John B.
But your explanation that "Oh! They didn't do it right" seems a bit
hard hearted. Do you mean that anyone that doesn't ride exactly as you
tell them to gets run over by trucks and your only comment is "Oh they
didn't do it right"

Disputes of this type do come up from time to time in the bicycle
advocacy forums: Is it ever appropriate to "blame the victims?"

I say it is appropriate to note people's mistakes, even (or especially)
fatal ones. It helps other people to learn.

The lady operating the scooter in your case did make a big mistake, and
she and her passenger paid for it dearly. The mistake was not riding on
an 80 kph roadway. I'd bet most of us here have done that hundreds of
times with perfect success. The mistake was pulling out into traffic
when it wasn't clear. It's stupid to defend such a move.

Now spend some time with the educational resources I listed below. Learn
how to operate a bicycle properly in traffic.

Post by John B.

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
One might ask, "If doing it wrong causes your death how will you ever
learn how to do it correctly?"

:-) Good question! How can anyone learn to do it correctly? My, what a
puzzle!
Answer: For the bare basics (all most people require) you might be able
https://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred004.htm
You might try buying and reading a copy of _Street Smarts_ by John
Allen. It's a slim volume, but it actually has more detail than most
people need. (This really isn't rocket science, John.)
If you want videos instead of reading, you could go to
https://cyclingsavvy.org/ They have quite a bit of information
available online, both videos and well done animations.
If you want to become much more expert, or if you need even more
guidance - say, because you're really nervous about this - you could
sign up for a real live course from Cycling Savvy. And if you're not in
the U.S., there are similar organizations in places like Britain and
Canada, and probably other countries that offer instruction courses.
Google is your friend.
Finally, if you really want deep learning on these topics and
techniques, you can buy a copy of _Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin. He has
editions for drive-on-the-left places like Britain, and
drive-on-the-right places like U.S. and Canada.
Whatever you do, don't throw up your hands and pretend its impossible.
Try to remember that there are plenty of people competently and
confidently bicycling in conditions you pretend are impossible.

[Catrike Ryder]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:54:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 10:51:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
One thing that it is important to remember is that in a conflict
between a bicycle and a auto the auto nearly always wins :-(
Here lies the body Of William Jay,
Who died maintaining His right of way.
He was in the right As he sped along,
But he's just as dead As if he'd been wrong.

It's a cute little poem, but like "always pretend you're invisible," its
useless as practical advice for a bicyclist.
A bicyclist who never used his right of way would be unable to
practically ride anywhere except on totally isolated bike paths.

The problem isn't whether you use a "right of way" it is what happens
if the auto, truck, whatever, doesn't see you or simply ignores your
right of way?
I even posted reference to two women who seized the lane, as Frank
suggests.The truck apparently did every thing he could do to avoid
them but hit them. One woman and one baby killed in the collision.
Frank's reaction? "Oh, they did it wrong."

That's true. As I recall, they were on a motor scooter and they pulled
directly out in front of a tractor trailer. Nobody here has ever
advocated that.

Post by John B.
One might ask, "If doing it wrong causes your death how will you ever
learn how to do it correctly?"

:-) Good question! How can anyone learn to do it correctly? My, what a
puzzle!
Answer: For the bare basics (all most people require) you might be able
https://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred004.htm
You might try buying and reading a copy of _Street Smarts_ by John
Allen. It's a slim volume, but it actually has more detail than most
people need. (This really isn't rocket science, John.)
If you want videos instead of reading, you could go to
https://cyclingsavvy.org/ They have quite a bit of information
available online, both videos and well done animations.
If you want to become much more expert, or if you need even more
guidance - say, because you're really nervous about this - you could
sign up for a real live course from Cycling Savvy. And if you're not in
the U.S., there are similar organizations in places like Britain and
Canada, and probably other countries that offer instruction courses.
Google is your friend.
Finally, if you really want deep learning on these topics and
techniques, you can buy a copy of _Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin. He has
editions for drive-on-the-left places like Britain, and
drive-on-the-right places like U.S. and Canada.
Whatever you do, don't throw up your hands and pretend its impossible.
Try to remember that there are plenty of people competently and
confidently bicycling in conditions you pretend are impossible.

Good grief. If, indeed, she had, stupidly pulled out directly in front
of a big truck, which I seriously doubt, no lessons are going to cure
that level of stupidity. On the other hand, how do you seize the lane
if you do not pull out into the traffic?

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[John B.]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 04:23:07 -0500, Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:54:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 10:51:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
One thing that it is important to remember is that in a conflict
between a bicycle and a auto the auto nearly always wins :-(
Here lies the body Of William Jay,
Who died maintaining His right of way.
He was in the right As he sped along,
But he's just as dead As if he'd been wrong.

It's a cute little poem, but like "always pretend you're invisible," its
useless as practical advice for a bicyclist.
A bicyclist who never used his right of way would be unable to
practically ride anywhere except on totally isolated bike paths.

The problem isn't whether you use a "right of way" it is what happens
if the auto, truck, whatever, doesn't see you or simply ignores your
right of way?
I even posted reference to two women who seized the lane, as Frank
suggests.The truck apparently did every thing he could do to avoid
them but hit them. One woman and one baby killed in the collision.
Frank's reaction? "Oh, they did it wrong."

That's true. As I recall, they were on a motor scooter and they pulled
directly out in front of a tractor trailer. Nobody here has ever
advocated that.

Post by John B.
One might ask, "If doing it wrong causes your death how will you ever
learn how to do it correctly?"

:-) Good question! How can anyone learn to do it correctly? My, what a
puzzle!
Answer: For the bare basics (all most people require) you might be able
https://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred004.htm
You might try buying and reading a copy of _Street Smarts_ by John
Allen. It's a slim volume, but it actually has more detail than most
people need. (This really isn't rocket science, John.)
If you want videos instead of reading, you could go to
https://cyclingsavvy.org/ They have quite a bit of information
available online, both videos and well done animations.
If you want to become much more expert, or if you need even more
guidance - say, because you're really nervous about this - you could
sign up for a real live course from Cycling Savvy. And if you're not in
the U.S., there are similar organizations in places like Britain and
Canada, and probably other countries that offer instruction courses.
Google is your friend.
Finally, if you really want deep learning on these topics and
techniques, you can buy a copy of _Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin. He has
editions for drive-on-the-left places like Britain, and
drive-on-the-right places like U.S. and Canada.
Whatever you do, don't throw up your hands and pretend its impossible.
Try to remember that there are plenty of people competently and
confidently bicycling in conditions you pretend are impossible.

Good grief. If, indeed, she had, stupidly pulled out directly in front
of a big truck, which I seriously doubt, no lessons are going to cure
that level of stupidity. On the other hand, how do you seize the lane
if you do not pull out into the traffic?

You do notice that all the recommended educational literature is just
something that some guy wrote. I see no studies based on long term
studies. Example, Frankie recommends seizing the lane, but here it is
illegal and the last time I looked highway deaths for bikes was neck
and neck for the lowest (heavy trucks were the other) numbers of
deaths.

But perhaps he is someone we should feel sympathy for. After all he
never mentions friends, seldom mentions his wife and, if he has any
children,has never, to my memory, mentioned them.
Just a grouchy old man without a friend, who's main activity (re his
posts) seems to be riding a bicycle to the library and home again..

[Roger Merriman]

Post by John B.
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 04:23:07 -0500, Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:54:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 10:51:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
One thing that it is important to remember is that in a conflict
between a bicycle and a auto the auto nearly always wins :-(
Here lies the body Of William Jay,
Who died maintaining His right of way.
He was in the right As he sped along,
But he's just as dead As if he'd been wrong.

It's a cute little poem, but like "always pretend you're invisible," its
useless as practical advice for a bicyclist.
A bicyclist who never used his right of way would be unable to
practically ride anywhere except on totally isolated bike paths.

The problem isn't whether you use a "right of way" it is what happens
if the auto, truck, whatever, doesn't see you or simply ignores your
right of way?
I even posted reference to two women who seized the lane, as Frank
suggests.The truck apparently did every thing he could do to avoid
them but hit them. One woman and one baby killed in the collision.
Frank's reaction? "Oh, they did it wrong."

That's true. As I recall, they were on a motor scooter and they pulled
directly out in front of a tractor trailer. Nobody here has ever
advocated that.

Post by John B.
One might ask, "If doing it wrong causes your death how will you ever
learn how to do it correctly?"

:-) Good question! How can anyone learn to do it correctly? My, what a
puzzle!
Answer: For the bare basics (all most people require) you might be able
https://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred004.htm
You might try buying and reading a copy of _Street Smarts_ by John
Allen. It's a slim volume, but it actually has more detail than most
people need. (This really isn't rocket science, John.)
If you want videos instead of reading, you could go to
https://cyclingsavvy.org/ They have quite a bit of information
available online, both videos and well done animations.
If you want to become much more expert, or if you need even more
guidance - say, because you're really nervous about this - you could
sign up for a real live course from Cycling Savvy. And if you're not in
the U.S., there are similar organizations in places like Britain and
Canada, and probably other countries that offer instruction courses.
Google is your friend.
Finally, if you really want deep learning on these topics and
techniques, you can buy a copy of _Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin. He has
editions for drive-on-the-left places like Britain, and
drive-on-the-right places like U.S. and Canada.
Whatever you do, don't throw up your hands and pretend its impossible.
Try to remember that there are plenty of people competently and
confidently bicycling in conditions you pretend are impossible.

Good grief. If, indeed, she had, stupidly pulled out directly in front
of a big truck, which I seriously doubt, no lessons are going to cure
that level of stupidity. On the other hand, how do you seize the lane
if you do not pull out into the traffic?

You do notice that all the recommended educational literature is just
something that some guy wrote. I see no studies based on long term
studies. Example, Frankie recommends seizing the lane, but here it is
illegal and the last time I looked highway deaths for bikes was neck
and neck for the lowest (heavy trucks were the other) numbers of
deaths.

It’s not only legal but in the uk Highway Code, doesn’t mean “seizing the
lane” always but moving aside as and when is appropriate ie safe etc to do
so.

It’s far from an out there idea! Again just because Frank is proposing it
doesn’t mean it has to be wrong!

“Road positioning. When riding on the roads, there are two basic road
positions you should adopt, depending on the situation.

1) Ride in the centre of your lane, to make yourself as clearly visible as
possible, in the following situations

on quiet roads or streets – if a faster vehicle comes up behind you, move
to the left to enable them to overtake, if you can do so safely
in slower-moving traffic - when the traffic around you starts to flow more
freely, move over to the left if you can do so safely so that faster
vehicles behind you can overtake
at the approach to junctions or road narrowings where it would be unsafe
for drivers to overtake you
2) When riding on busy roads, with vehicles moving faster than you, allow
them to overtake where it is safe to do so whilst keeping at least 0.5
metres away, and further where it is safer, from the kerb edge. Remember
that traffic on most dual carriageways moves quickly. Take extra care
crossing slip roads.”

Rule 72
<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82>

Ie official guidelines.

Post by John B.
But perhaps he is someone we should feel sympathy for. After all he
never mentions friends, seldom mentions his wife and, if he has any
children,has never, to my memory, mentioned them.
Just a grouchy old man without a friend, who's main activity (re his
posts) seems to be riding a bicycle to the library and home again..

Roger Merriman

[Frank Krygowski]

On 1/16/2025 4:23 AM, Catrike Ryder demonstrated amazing ignorance by

Post by Catrike Ryder
how do you seize the lane
if you do not pull out into the traffic?

Our tricycle rider is so unfamiliar with riding on actual roads that he
seems to visualize every road as always being bumper to bumper with
speeding vehicles. But that oh-so-scary image is paranoid fantasy.

Almost all roads feature rather large gaps between moving vehicles. When
I bicycle out of my street onto a four lane that carries something like
30,000 vehicles per day, I do it by waiting for a gap in traffic, much
as I do when driving may car or riding my motorcycle.

With any of my three vehicles, I then place myself in the center of the
lane. With any of those three vehicles, motorists who want to go faster
than me merge into the next lane over to pass.

This is not rocket science. It's all according to existing traffic laws.
It's not dangerous, it's not scary.

[Catrike Ryder]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 11:16:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
On 1/16/2025 4:23 AM, Catrike Ryder demonstrated amazing ignorance by

Post by Catrike Ryder
how do you seize the lane
if you do not pull out into the traffic?

Our tricycle rider is so unfamiliar with riding on actual roads that he
seems to visualize every road as always being bumper to bumper with
speeding vehicles. But that oh-so-scary image is paranoid fantasy.

<LOL> Krygowski often tries to put words in other people mouths, here
he tried to put thoughts in other person's (me) minds.

Post by Frank Krygowski
Almost all roads feature rather large gaps between moving vehicles. When
I bicycle out of my street onto a four lane that carries something like
30,000 vehicles per day, I do it by waiting for a gap in traffic, much
as I do when driving may car or riding my motorcycle.

So, I guess you do pull out into the traffic.

Post by Frank Krygowski
With any of my three vehicles, I then place myself in the center of the
lane. With any of those three vehicles, motorists who want to go faster
than me merge into the next lane over to pass.

Well, yes, as I just said in another thread. I've found that riding in
traffic in four lanes is easier and safer than riding in two lanes.
I've done it many times.

Post by Frank Krygowski
This is not rocket science. It's all according to existing traffic laws.
It's not dangerous, it's not scary.

Actually, driving, or motorcycling on or walking along near heavy
traffic can be dangerous enough. My wife and I have driven thousands
of miles on the road described below. We've never seen anyone stupid
enough to ride a bicycle on it, let alone "take the lane."

According to a Dateline NBC study, part of US 19 in Florida is the
most dangerous road in the U.S. A Florida Highway Patrol test period
beginning in 1998 and ending in 2003, as mandated by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, showed the stretch of US 19
from Pasco to Pinellas county to average approximately 52 deaths a
year, or 262 deaths in the five-year duration of the study. Of these
deaths, 100 were pedestrian related making US 19 the #1 worst road to
walk on in these two counties.[4] Multiple efforts to improve US 19
have been suggested to FDOT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_19_in_Florida

That's one death a week on a 25/30 mile stretch of high way. How many
fender benders would that take. What are the odds that a fender bender
type of accident with a vehicle would be a serious accident for a
bicycle?

Accident and death statistics are much worse today.

I suspect that you don't ever really ride in any serious traffic.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Catrike Ryder
I suspect that you don't ever really ride in any serious traffic.

As with other discussions here, you seem to be limiting your definition
- in this case, of "serious traffic" - to extremes tiny enough to back
your point.

There are roads I avoid riding. But as I've said, I've been caught on
very densely traveled narrow four lane highway with no way out, and I
rode it until I could exit in the only way possible: by riding lane center.

I've ridden my bike in 5 PM Friday traffic in downtown Pittsburgh. The
first time I did that it was in a pouring thunderstorm.

As mentioned, I (or rather we) rode coast to coast, including through
many big cities. I've ridden in Columbus, Cleveland, Indianapolis, LA,
Portland, Toronto, Paris, Vienna, Stockholm, etc. etc.

Of _course_ you'll claim I could not have done all that, which is your
"go to" defense.

[Catrike Ryder]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 16:55:47 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
I suspect that you don't ever really ride in any serious traffic.

As with other discussions here, you seem to be limiting your definition
- in this case, of "serious traffic" - to extremes tiny enough to back
your point.
There are roads I avoid riding. But as I've said, I've been caught on
very densely traveled narrow four lane highway with no way out, and I
rode it until I could exit in the only way possible: by riding lane center.
I've ridden my bike in 5 PM Friday traffic in downtown Pittsburgh. The
first time I did that it was in a pouring thunderstorm.
As mentioned, I (or rather we) rode coast to coast, including through
many big cities. I've ridden in Columbus, Cleveland, Indianapolis, LA,
Portland, Toronto, Paris, Vienna, Stockholm, etc. etc.
Of _course_ you'll claim I could not have done all that, which is your
"go to" defense.

I don't claim you couldn't have done all that. I just claim that you
made it all up.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 11:49:32 -0500, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 10:51:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
One thing that it is important to remember is that in a conflict
between a bicycle and a auto the auto nearly always wins :-(
Here lies the body Of William Jay,
Who died maintaining His right of way.
He was in the right As he sped along,
But he's just as dead As if he'd been wrong.

It's a cute little poem, but like "always pretend you're invisible," its
useless as practical advice for a bicyclist.
A bicyclist who never used his right of way would be unable to
practically ride anywhere except on totally isolated bike paths.

What nonsense. I doubt there are any bicyclists who don't ride
anywhere they want providing it's legal. I know I always have.

The problem isn't whether you use a "right of way" it is what happens
if the auto, truck, whatever, doesn't see you or simply ignores your
right of way?
I even posted reference to two women who seized the lane, as Frank
suggests.The truck apparently did every thing he could do to avoid
them but hit them. One woman and one baby killed in the collision.
Frank's reaction? "Oh, they did it wrong."
One might ask, "If doing it wrong causes your death how will you ever
learn how to do it correctly?"

Oh no, now you've opened the door to one of his a big rants about
bicycle instruction.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.
One might ask, "If doing it wrong causes your death how will you ever
learn how to do it correctly?"

Oh no, now you've opened the door to one of his a big rants about
bicycle instruction.

And damn, we certainly don't want people to _learn_ anything! :-)

[Catrike Ryder]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 11:17:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.
One might ask, "If doing it wrong causes your death how will you ever
learn how to do it correctly?"

Oh no, now you've opened the door to one of his a big rants about
bicycle instruction.

And damn, we certainly don't want people to _learn_ anything! :-)

I suppose there are some people who haven't figured out that you steer
a two wheeler by leaning and that one can lean a two wheeler one way
by steering the other way. Most people do that without even knowing
they're doing it, so they don't need "to _learn_ anything."

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[cyclintom]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
One thing that it is important to remember is that in a conflict
between a bicycle and a auto the auto nearly always wins :-(
Here lies the body Of William Jay,
Who died maintaining His right of way.
He was in the right As he sped along,
But he's just as dead As if he'd been wrong.

It's a cute little poem, but like "always pretend you're invisible," its
useless as practical advice for a bicyclist.
A bicyclist who never used his right of way would be unable to
practically ride anywhere except on totally isolated bike paths.

You are very confusing Frank. We have an entire country in which the overwhelming majority of bicyclists claim that bicycle lane make cycling a great deal more safe. And yet you continue to say otherwise and believe that taking the lane is safer than never being in the way.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by cyclintom

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
One thing that it is important to remember is that in a conflict
between a bicycle and a auto the auto nearly always wins :-(
Here lies the body Of William Jay,
Who died maintaining His right of way.
He was in the right As he sped along,
But he's just as dead As if he'd been wrong.

It's a cute little poem, but like "always pretend you're invisible," its
useless as practical advice for a bicyclist.
A bicyclist who never used his right of way would be unable to
practically ride anywhere except on totally isolated bike paths.

You are very confusing Frank. We have an entire country in which the overwhelming majority of bicyclists claim that bicycle lane make cycling a great deal more safe. And yet you continue to say otherwise and believe that taking the lane is safer than never being in the way.

Tom, you're off on a tangent again. What I wrote above had little or
nothing to do with whether a bike lane makes cycling safer.

If you were to pretend you were invisible, or if you never trusted any
motorist to respect your right of way, you'd have to jump off your bike
any time a motor vehicle might cross your path.

[cyclintom]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by cyclintom
You are very confusing Frank. We have an entire country in which the overwhelming majority of bicyclists claim that bicycle lane make cycling a great deal more safe. And yet you continue to say otherwise and believe that taking the lane is safer than never being in the way.

Tom, you're off on a tangent again. What I wrote above had little or
nothing to do with whether a bike lane makes cycling safer.
If you were to pretend you were invisible, or if you never trusted any
motorist to respect your right of way, you'd have to jump off your bike
any time a motor vehicle might cross your path.

In other words, you do not want to answer your statements because it sounds too dumb.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by cyclintom

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by cyclintom
You are very confusing Frank. We have an entire country in which the overwhelming majority of bicyclists claim that bicycle lane make cycling a great deal more safe. And yet you continue to say otherwise and believe that taking the lane is safer than never being in the way.

Tom, you're off on a tangent again. What I wrote above had little or
nothing to do with whether a bike lane makes cycling safer.
If you were to pretend you were invisible, or if you never trusted any
motorist to respect your right of way, you'd have to jump off your bike
any time a motor vehicle might cross your path.

In other words, you do not want to answer your statements because it sounds too dumb.

It's hard to have a conversation with a scatterbrain.

Pick a topic and stick to it. State your position clearly, ask your
questions clearly and let me answer them. Stop changing the subject.

[cyclintom]

Post by NFN Smith

Post by NFN Smith

Post by Frank Krygowski
Some Montana legislators are wanting to make wrong-way riding mandatory.

For non-riders (or novice riders), especially if they've been trained
to always *walk* facing traffic, there is frequently a fear of the
speed of vehicles approaching from the rear (and not visible) even if
the speed differential is far less than facing traffic.
For the purposes of public policy, this is an ongoing tension that
probably never be resolved, the difference between the bicycle being
regarded as a pedestrian and the bicycle regarded as a vehicle, and
for the latter, where despite the speed differential with motor
vehicles, the bike should have all the rights and responsibilities as
a motorist.

On reflection, something else that I could have mentioned is that in
this circumstance (especially Montana) is the common idea that roads are
for cars, and that anything that impedes that is considered to be evil,
and must be removed. In other words, "you're in the way, get off my
road!". I've seen aggressive motorists that go so far as to assert this
claim with "I pay taxes" (e.g. motor fuel).
One other effect of this that I've seen is that when I'm on my bike,
it's worth being cautious around cars that have a lot of stickers on the
back. It's not just the obvious ones that indicate that the motorist
may be hostile to cyclists, but multiple stickers (regardless of
content) may be an indicator of "turf marking" and where the drive is
proportionally less friendly to having a cyclist too close to their
vehicle. And sometimes, the implied aggressive behavior is little more
than mere bullying.

This is especially common among illegals here in California with these assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

[Shadow]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 16:57:39 GMT, cyclintom <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:

<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
[]'s

[cyclintom]

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.

I don't think that we need any more communist propaganda. I think that I should send your postings to the Brazilian government.

[Shadow]

Post by cyclintom

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.

I don't think that we need any more communist propaganda. I think that I should send your postings to the Brazilian government.

Please do. Lula removed all communists from the Worker's Party
over 30 years ago. Nobody likes communists, they're as bad as right
wing orange fascists.
[]'s

[AMuzi]

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
[]'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred
solution to everything "Tax the rich" ?

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

    The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
    Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
    []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred solution to
everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really need? For what?

[AMuzi]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Shadow
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 16:57:39 GMT, cyclintom
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in
California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere
near them.

    The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay.
Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any
unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving
without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
    Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money
left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
    []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your
preferred solution to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really
need? For what?

You've written that previously.

I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent
over half of income tax revenue:

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/

In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the
problem of collecting revenues shows the complex mix of factors:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-ditching-california-163000441.html

Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%,
typically pay between 40-50% of the state’s personal income
tax revenue."



I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

[John B.]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Shadow
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 16:57:39 GMT, cyclintom
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in
California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere
near them.

    The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay.
Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any
unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving
without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
    Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money
left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
    []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your
preferred solution to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really
need? For what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-ditching-california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%,
typically pay between 40-50% of the state’s personal income
tax revenue."
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

The question "How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really
need? For what?"is a two edged sword as one can ask the question to
almost anyone.Frank, for example, has a bicycle, a motorcycle (he may
have recently sold that) and an electric car, not to mention shoes.
Does one really, truly, need all these transportation devices?

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

    The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
    Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
    []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred solution
to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really need? For what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent over half of
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the problem of
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-ditching-
california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%, typically pay
between 40-50% of the state’s personal income tax revenue."

I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise their upper
level tax rates.

Post by AMuzi
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?

I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to
live on.”

Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to put off
buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild (whose taste
they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway). Taxing the poorer
people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.

So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries with far,
far less income disparity. I believe those policies contribute to much
better social services, much lower crime and unrest, better paved roads,
free medical care, etc.

[John B.]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

    The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
    Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
    []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred solution
to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really need? For what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent over half of
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the problem of
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-ditching-
california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%, typically pay
between 40-50% of the state’s personal income tax revenue."

I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise their upper
level tax rates.

Post by AMuzi
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to
live on.”
Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to put off
buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild (whose taste
they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway). Taxing the poorer
people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.
So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries with far,
far less income disparity. I believe those policies contribute to much
better social services, much lower crime and unrest, better paved roads,
free medical care, etc.

AS I posted previously what is "the wealthy"? After all you obviously
have more money then you require with your electric car, motorcycle
and bicycle.

Or are you one of those who argue, "No! No! Not me! Tax someone else!"

Remember that Jeff Bezos started by selling books out of his garage.
You could have done that. Why didn't you? So now you want to penalize,
with higher taxes, someone simply because he was smarter the you?

[AMuzi]

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

    The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
    Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
    []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred solution
to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really need? For what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent over half of
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the problem of
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-ditching-
california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%, typically pay
between 40-50% of the state’s personal income tax revenue."

I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise their upper
level tax rates.

Post by AMuzi
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to
live on.”
Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to put off
buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild (whose taste
they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway). Taxing the poorer
people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.
So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries with far,
far less income disparity. I believe those policies contribute to much
better social services, much lower crime and unrest, better paved roads,
free medical care, etc.

AS I posted previously what is "the wealthy"? After all you obviously
have more money then you require with your electric car, motorcycle
and bicycle.
Or are you one of those who argue, "No! No! Not me! Tax someone else!"
Remember that Jeff Bezos started by selling books out of his garage.
You could have done that. Why didn't you? So now you want to penalize,
with higher taxes, someone simply because he was smarter the you?

Mr Krygowski is not alone in believing it's OK to steal as
long as grand promises are made and the various layers of
civil service graft and waste are preserved.

The usual retort to that immorality is, "Well, to make an
omelet we must break some eggs."

There is never an omelet.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

     The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
     Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
     []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred solution
to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really need? For what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent over half of
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the problem of
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-ditching-
california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%, typically pay
between 40-50% of the state’s personal income tax revenue."

I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise their upper
level tax rates.

Post by AMuzi
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to
live on.”
Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to put off
buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild (whose taste
they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway). Taxing the poorer
people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.
So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries with far,
far less income disparity. I believe those policies contribute to much
better social services, much lower crime and unrest, better paved roads,
free medical care, etc.

AS I posted previously what is "the wealthy"? After all you obviously
have more money then you require with your electric car, motorcycle
and bicycle.
Or are you one of those who argue, "No! No! Not me! Tax someone else!"
Remember that Jeff Bezos started by selling books out of his garage.
You could have done that. Why didn't you? So now you want to penalize,
with higher taxes,  someone simply because he was smarter the you?

Mr Krygowski is not alone in believing it's OK to steal as long as grand
promises are made and the various layers of civil service graft and
waste are preserved.
The usual retort to that immorality is, "Well, to make an omelet we must
break some eggs."
There is never an omelet.

And yet, there are plenty of countries whose policies produce less
income and wealth inequality, better social services, excellent
prosperity, more citizen contentment, lower crime rates, better
infrastructure...

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/income-equality

They seem happy with their omelets! How are they doing what you deem
impossible?

[Catrike Ryder]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 11:22:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

     The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
     Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
     []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred solution
to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really need? For what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent over half of
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the problem of
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-ditching-
california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%, typically pay
between 40-50% of the state’s personal income tax revenue."

I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise their upper
level tax rates.

Post by AMuzi
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to
live on.”
Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to put off
buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild (whose taste
they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway). Taxing the poorer
people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.
So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries with far,
far less income disparity. I believe those policies contribute to much
better social services, much lower crime and unrest, better paved roads,
free medical care, etc.

AS I posted previously what is "the wealthy"? After all you obviously
have more money then you require with your electric car, motorcycle
and bicycle.
Or are you one of those who argue, "No! No! Not me! Tax someone else!"
Remember that Jeff Bezos started by selling books out of his garage.
You could have done that. Why didn't you? So now you want to penalize,
with higher taxes,  someone simply because he was smarter the you?

Mr Krygowski is not alone in believing it's OK to steal as long as grand
promises are made and the various layers of civil service graft and
waste are preserved.
The usual retort to that immorality is, "Well, to make an omelet we must
break some eggs."
There is never an omelet.

And yet, there are plenty of countries whose policies produce less
income and wealth inequality, better social services, excellent
prosperity, more citizen contentment, lower crime rates, better
infrastructure...
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/income-equality
They seem happy with their omelets! How are they doing what you deem
impossible?

They seem equally happy being deprived of freedom of speech. Some
people just beg to be told what to do and think..

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[Catrike Ryder]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

    The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
    Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
    []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred solution
to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really need? For what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent over half of
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the problem of
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-ditching-
california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%, typically pay
between 40-50% of the state’s personal income tax revenue."

I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise their upper
level tax rates.

Post by AMuzi
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?

Wow! A limit on how much a person can have? and then what? A wealth
tax?

Post by Frank Krygowski
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to
live on.”

So she starved? WTF? Are you really OK with that?

I am reminded of wealthy TV "preachers" enticing poor people to send
them money, with "call this number and I'll pray for you."

For what it's worth. I have no issues with religion itself, nor with
the study and education of it, but doesn't it say somewhere in the
Bible that you should go off by yourself to pray instead of having
somebody in a robe and/or a collar stand you up, tell you to bow your
head, and listen while he/she speaks for you?

That never worked for me.

Post by Frank Krygowski
Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to put off
buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild (whose taste
they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway). Taxing the poorer
people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.
So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries with far,
far less income disparity. I believe those policies contribute to much
better social services, much lower crime and unrest, better paved roads,
free medical care, etc.

Thankfully, the plans for more collectivist policies in the USA got
shot down pretty seriously last November. I don't know if the USA can
ever move back toward individualism, but at least, the movement away
from it got impaired.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

    The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
    Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
    []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred solution
to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really need? For what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent over half of
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the problem of
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-ditching-
california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%, typically pay
between 40-50% of the state’s personal income tax revenue."

I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise their upper
level tax rates.

Post by AMuzi
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?

Wow! A limit on how much a person can have? and then what? A wealth
tax?

Post by Frank Krygowski
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to
live on.”

So she starved? WTF? Are you really OK with that?
I am reminded of wealthy TV "preachers" enticing poor people to send
them money, with "call this number and I'll pray for you."
For what it's worth. I have no issues with religion itself, nor with
the study and education of it, but doesn't it say somewhere in the
Bible that you should go off by yourself to pray instead of having
somebody in a robe and/or a collar stand you up, tell you to bow your
head, and listen while he/she speaks for you?
That never worked for me.

Post by Frank Krygowski
Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to put off
buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild (whose taste
they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway). Taxing the poorer
people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.
So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries with far,
far less income disparity. I believe those policies contribute to much
better social services, much lower crime and unrest, better paved roads,
free medical care, etc.

Thankfully, the plans for more collectivist policies in the USA got
shot down pretty seriously last November. I don't know if the USA can
ever move back toward individualism, but at least, the movement away
from it got impaired.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

Nice thought.
But from what I see, individualism and small government have
been abandoned by both parties. We're seeing a large shift
on many _issues_ but not on reckless spending- it's just
going slightly elsewhere (not fully elsewhere). This shift
seems to be on a few specific practical points but both
parties have abandoned principle.

I hope you're wrong, but I suspect you're right. Perhaps I'm hoping
for a miracle for my prodigy's sake. Unfortunately, they don't seem
terribly interested in it.

As for political principle, it died long ago, or perhaps it was never
there at all. At any rate, I have little doubt that we humans will
eventually destroy ourselves.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[Catrike Ryder]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 11:27:20 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to
live on.”

So she starved? WTF? Are you really OK with that?

Good point: WTF!
I'll bet you think the guy who told that tale should have been
crucified, right?

Good grief, Krygowski, you have no idea who made that story up.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[AMuzi]

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 11:27:20 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow
contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this
poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all
gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything
—all she had to
live on.”

So she starved? WTF? Are you really OK with that?

Good point: WTF!
I'll bet you think the guy who told that tale should
have been
crucified, right?

Good grief, Krygowski, you have no idea who made that
story up.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

[raises hand]
Uh, Mark?
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-42/
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-43/

As one godless heathen to another, I say "well-played sir,
well-played"

Merely not being a Christian is no excuse to ignore English lit!

[AMuzi]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 11:27:20 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow
contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this
poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all
gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in
everything —all she had to
live on.”

So she starved? WTF? Are you really OK with that?

Good point: WTF!
I'll bet you think the guy who told that tale should
have been
crucified, right?

Good grief, Krygowski, you have no idea who made that
story up.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

[raises hand]
Uh, Mark?
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-42/
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-43/

As one godless heathen to another, I say "well-played
sir, well-played"

Merely not being a Christian is no excuse to ignore
English lit!

?
I wouldn't exactly call the bible english lit.

It's absolutely fundamental, and a gargantuan outsized
influence on everything which follows, from Shakespeare to
Lincoln.

(The King James anyway. If you read it in the original
Hebrew (Part I) and Greek (Part II), then I have no opinion

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by AMuzi

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 11:27:20 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow
contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this
poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all
gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in
everything —all she had to
live on.”

So she starved? WTF? Are you really OK with that?

Good point: WTF!
I'll bet you think the guy who told that tale should
have been
crucified, right?

Good grief, Krygowski, you have no idea who made that
story up.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

[raises hand]
Uh, Mark?
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-42/
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-43/

As one godless heathen to another, I say "well-played
sir, well-played"

Merely not being a Christian is no excuse to ignore
English lit!

?
I wouldn't exactly call the bible english lit.

It's absolutely fundamental, and a gargantuan outsized
influence on everything which follows, from Shakespeare to
Lincoln.
(The King James anyway. If you read it in the original
Hebrew (Part I) and Greek (Part II), then I have no opinion

I understand that the Book of Mark was originally written in Greek.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[AMuzi]

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by AMuzi

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 11:27:20 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow
contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all
gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in
everything —all she had to
live on.”

So she starved? WTF? Are you really OK with that?

Good point: WTF!
I'll bet you think the guy who told that tale should
have been
crucified, right?

Good grief, Krygowski, you have no idea who made that
story up.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

[raises hand]
Uh, Mark?
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-42/
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-43/

As one godless heathen to another, I say "well-played
sir, well-played"

Merely not being a Christian is no excuse to ignore
English lit!

?
I wouldn't exactly call the bible english lit.

It's absolutely fundamental, and a gargantuan outsized
influence on everything which follows, from Shakespeare to
Lincoln.
(The King James anyway. If you read it in the original
Hebrew (Part I) and Greek (Part II), then I have no opinion

I understand that the Book of Mark was originally written in Greek.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

Right, or possibly Aramaic. People who don't ride bicycles
enough have time to argue about that.

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by AMuzi

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 11:27:20 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow
contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this
poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all
gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in
everything —all she had to
live on.”

So she starved? WTF? Are you really OK with that?

Good point: WTF!
I'll bet you think the guy who told that tale should
have been
crucified, right?

Good grief, Krygowski, you have no idea who made that
story up.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

[raises hand]
Uh, Mark?
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-42/
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-43/

As one godless heathen to another, I say "well-played
sir, well-played"

Merely not being a Christian is no excuse to ignore
English lit!

?
I wouldn't exactly call the bible english lit.

It's absolutely fundamental, and a gargantuan outsized
influence on everything which follows, from Shakespeare to
Lincoln.
(The King James anyway. If you read it in the original
Hebrew (Part I) and Greek (Part II), then I have no opinion

I understand that the Book of Mark was originally written in Greek.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

Right, or possibly Aramaic. People who don't ride bicycles
enough have time to argue about that.

My biblical research happened a long time ago before I was out of high
school. For a long time I believed I was an athiest even though my
family was very religious. I've moderated that belief and now admit
that I have no idea what the reality might be. I'm comfortable not
knowing. It has no effect on how I live my life and I get along fine
with people on both extremes by generally not professing any religious
beliefs.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[AMuzi]

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by AMuzi

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 11:27:20 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow
contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this
poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all
gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in
everything —all she had to
live on.”

So she starved? WTF? Are you really OK with that?

Good point: WTF!
I'll bet you think the guy who told that tale should
have been
crucified, right?

Good grief, Krygowski, you have no idea who made that
story up.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

[raises hand]
Uh, Mark?
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-42/
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-43/

As one godless heathen to another, I say "well-played
sir, well-played"

Merely not being a Christian is no excuse to ignore
English lit!

?
I wouldn't exactly call the bible english lit.

It's absolutely fundamental, and a gargantuan outsized
influence on everything which follows, from Shakespeare to
Lincoln.
(The King James anyway. If you read it in the original
Hebrew (Part I) and Greek (Part II), then I have no opinion

I understand that the Book of Mark was originally written in Greek.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

Right, or possibly Aramaic. People who don't ride bicycles
enough have time to argue about that.

My biblical research happened a long time ago before I was out of high
school. For a long time I believed I was an athiest even though my
family was very religious. I've moderated that belief and now admit
that I have no idea what the reality might be. I'm comfortable not
knowing. It has no effect on how I live my life and I get along fine
with people on both extremes by generally not professing any religious
beliefs.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

Ditto to that. I was a Stoic for a good long while before I
adopted the label while re reading Marcus Aurelius:

"I just want to be a good man, a good Roman, a good Stoic."

What better life could I have?

[Zen Cycle]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 11:27:20 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything —all she
had to
live on.”

So she starved? WTF? Are you really OK with that?

Good point: WTF!
I'll bet you think the guy who told that tale should have been
crucified, right?

Good grief, Krygowski, you have no idea who made that story up.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

[raises hand]
Uh, Mark?
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-42/
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-43/

As one godless heathen to another, I say "well-played sir, well-played"

Merely not being a Christian is no excuse to ignore English lit!

?
I wouldn't exactly call the bible english lit.

It's absolutely fundamental, and a gargantuan outsized influence on
everything which follows, from Shakespeare to Lincoln.
(The King James anyway. If you read it in the original Hebrew (Part I)
and Greek (Part II), then I have no opinion

True, but except for the recent movement in some states to shove the
bible down students throats, you won't find many English lit classes
where the bible is on the syllabus (nothing showed up in my half-assed
search, I could be wrong).

I was however surprised to see how many colleges have a "bible as
literature" course offering.

[AMuzi]

Post by Zen Cycle

Post by AMuzi

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 11:27:20 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow
contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you,
this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They
all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in
everything —all she had to
live on.”

So she starved? WTF? Are you really OK with that?

Good point: WTF!
I'll bet you think the guy who told that tale should
have been
crucified, right?

Good grief, Krygowski, you have no idea who made that
story up.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

[raises hand]
Uh, Mark?
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-42/
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-43/

As one godless heathen to another, I say "well-played
sir, well-played"

Merely not being a Christian is no excuse to ignore
English lit!

?
I wouldn't exactly call the bible english lit.

It's absolutely fundamental, and a gargantuan outsized
influence on everything which follows, from Shakespeare to
Lincoln.
(The King James anyway. If you read it in the original
Hebrew (Part I) and Greek (Part II), then I have no opinion

True, but except for the recent movement in some states to
shove the bible down students throats, you won't find many
English lit classes where the bible is on the syllabus
(nothing showed up in my half-assed search, I could be wrong).
I was however surprised to see how many colleges have a
"bible as literature" course offering.

Correct. Each man is on his own regarding deeper meaning or
lack thereof. But it really is fundamental to understanding
English literature.

[Frank Krygowski]

... it really is fundamental to understanding English literature.

I wonder how many here have actually read it.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Frank Krygowski

... it really is fundamental to understanding English literature.

I wonder how many here have actually read it.

And to clarify, I mean read the entire thing.

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 11:27:20 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow
contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this
poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all
gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything
—all she had to
live on.”

So she starved? WTF? Are you really OK with that?

Good point: WTF!
I'll bet you think the guy who told that tale should
have been
crucified, right?

Good grief, Krygowski, you have no idea who made that
story up.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

[raises hand]
Uh, Mark?
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-42/
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-43/

As one godless heathen to another, I say "well-played sir,
well-played"

Merely not being a Christian is no excuse to ignore English lit!

When was the Bible translated to English? did the translaters just
foget the part where the authors signed their names?

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 11:27:20 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to
live on.”

So she starved? WTF? Are you really OK with that?

Good point: WTF!
I'll bet you think the guy who told that tale should have been
crucified, right?

Good grief, Krygowski, you have no idea who made that story up.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

[raises hand]
Uh, Mark?
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-42/
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-43/

Could be, but there's condiderable doubt.

An early church tradition, deriving from Papias of Hierapolis
(c.60–c.130 AD),[6] regards the Gospel as based on the preaching of
Saint Peter, and written down by John Mark, who is named in the Acts
of the Apostles as a companion of Saint Peter.[7][8][9] Most critical
scholars reject this tradition, and it is generally agreed that it was
written anonymously for a gentile audience, probably in Rome, sometime
shortly before or after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70
AD.[10][b]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

As for me, I don;t knoe and I don't care who wrote it. I evaluate it
on it's own standing, as I do on most everything.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[AMuzi]

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 11:27:20 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to
live on.”

So she starved? WTF? Are you really OK with that?

Good point: WTF!
I'll bet you think the guy who told that tale should have been
crucified, right?

Good grief, Krygowski, you have no idea who made that story up.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

[raises hand]
Uh, Mark?
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-42/
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-43/

Could be, but there's condiderable doubt.
An early church tradition, deriving from Papias of Hierapolis
(c.60–c.130 AD),[6] regards the Gospel as based on the preaching of
Saint Peter, and written down by John Mark, who is named in the Acts
of the Apostles as a companion of Saint Peter.[7][8][9] Most critical
scholars reject this tradition, and it is generally agreed that it was
written anonymously for a gentile audience, probably in Rome, sometime
shortly before or after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70
AD.[10][b]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark
As for me, I don;t knoe and I don't care who wrote it. I evaluate it
on it's own standing, as I do on most everything.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

Well, yes much is unknown and will most probably remain so.

And we are all familiar with the most egregious translation
errors in King James.

But the composition, wordcraft and phrasing is fundamental
to understanding English literature, without regard to
history, accuracy or truth in the original.

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 11:27:20 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to
live on.”

So she starved? WTF? Are you really OK with that?

Good point: WTF!
I'll bet you think the guy who told that tale should have been
crucified, right?

Good grief, Krygowski, you have no idea who made that story up.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

[raises hand]
Uh, Mark?
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-42/
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-43/

Could be, but there's condiderable doubt.
An early church tradition, deriving from Papias of Hierapolis
(c.60–c.130 AD),[6] regards the Gospel as based on the preaching of
Saint Peter, and written down by John Mark, who is named in the Acts
of the Apostles as a companion of Saint Peter.[7][8][9] Most critical
scholars reject this tradition, and it is generally agreed that it was
written anonymously for a gentile audience, probably in Rome, sometime
shortly before or after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70
AD.[10][b]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark
As for me, I don;t knoe and I don't care who wrote it. I evaluate it
on it's own standing, as I do on most everything.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

Well, yes much is unknown and will most probably remain so.
And we are all familiar with the most egregious translation
errors in King James.
But the composition, wordcraft and phrasing is fundamental
to understanding English literature, without regard to
history, accuracy or truth in the original.

I regard the Bible as a history book, but I take it all with several
grains of salt. It seems to me that a lot of it was written to
frighten people into towing the line.

I believe that today, Christianity is a force for good, but I base
that belief on what I witness, not what I'm told.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 11:27:20 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to
live on.”

So she starved? WTF? Are you really OK with that?

Good point: WTF!
I'll bet you think the guy who told that tale should have been
crucified, right?

Good grief, Krygowski, you have no idea who made that story up.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

[raises hand]
Uh, Mark?
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-42/
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-43/

Could be, but there's condiderable doubt.
An early church tradition, deriving from Papias of Hierapolis
(c.60–c.130 AD),[6] regards the Gospel as based on the preaching of
Saint Peter, and written down by John Mark, who is named in the Acts
of the Apostles as a companion of Saint Peter.[7][8][9] Most critical
scholars reject this tradition, and it is generally agreed that it was
written anonymously for a gentile audience, probably in Rome, sometime
shortly before or after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70
AD.[10][b]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark
As for me, I don;t knoe and I don't care who wrote it. I evaluate it
on it's own standing, as I do on most everything.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

Well, yes much is unknown and will most probably remain so.
And we are all familiar with the most egregious translation
errors in King James.
But the composition, wordcraft and phrasing is fundamental
to understanding English literature, without regard to
history, accuracy or truth in the original.

I regard the Bible as a history book, but I take it all with several
grains of salt. It seems to me that a lot of it was written to
frighten people into towing the line.
I believe that today, Christianity is a force for good, but I base
that belief on what I witness, not what I'm told.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

I could argue both sides. But I don't much care.
However, as literature, it is the basis of modern English,
printed in large numbers, for many years, especially in
times when other works were much less numerous nor widely
read. Truly, everything about English lit, and much of
modern English itself, traces to King James.

King James and his translators/editors.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[AMuzi]

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 11:27:20 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to
live on.”

So she starved? WTF? Are you really OK with that?

Good point: WTF!
I'll bet you think the guy who told that tale should have been
crucified, right?

Good grief, Krygowski, you have no idea who made that story up.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

[raises hand]
Uh, Mark?
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-42/
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-43/

Could be, but there's condiderable doubt.
An early church tradition, deriving from Papias of Hierapolis
(c.60–c.130 AD),[6] regards the Gospel as based on the preaching of
Saint Peter, and written down by John Mark, who is named in the Acts
of the Apostles as a companion of Saint Peter.[7][8][9] Most critical
scholars reject this tradition, and it is generally agreed that it was
written anonymously for a gentile audience, probably in Rome, sometime
shortly before or after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70
AD.[10][b]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark
As for me, I don;t knoe and I don't care who wrote it. I evaluate it
on it's own standing, as I do on most everything.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

Well, yes much is unknown and will most probably remain so.
And we are all familiar with the most egregious translation
errors in King James.
But the composition, wordcraft and phrasing is fundamental
to understanding English literature, without regard to
history, accuracy or truth in the original.

I regard the Bible as a history book, but I take it all with several
grains of salt. It seems to me that a lot of it was written to
frighten people into towing the line.
I believe that today, Christianity is a force for good, but I base
that belief on what I witness, not what I'm told.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

I could argue both sides. But I don't much care.
However, as literature, it is the basis of modern English,
printed in large numbers, for many years, especially in
times when other works were much less numerous nor widely
read. Truly, everything about English lit, and much of
modern English itself, traces to King James.

King James and his translators/editors.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

+1 to that.
He personally had nothing whatsoever to do with it besides
hiring the most erudite scholars available.

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 11:27:20 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to
live on.”

So she starved? WTF? Are you really OK with that?

Good point: WTF!
I'll bet you think the guy who told that tale should have been
crucified, right?

Good grief, Krygowski, you have no idea who made that story up.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

[raises hand]
Uh, Mark?
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-42/
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-12-43/

As one godless heathen to another, I say "well-played sir, well-played"

Or...

https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-wrote-the-gospel-of-mark

Nowhere in the Book of Mark does the author reveal or give any hint as
to who he is.

I thought this was common knowedge, but I guess group think is more
powerful than I thought.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[Shadow]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

    The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
    Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
    []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred solution
to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really need? For what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent over half of
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the problem of
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-ditching-
california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%, typically pay
between 40-50% of the state’s personal income tax revenue."

I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise their upper
level tax rates.

Post by AMuzi
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to
live on.”
Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to put off
buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild (whose taste
they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway). Taxing the poorer
people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.
So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries with far,
far less income disparity. I believe those policies contribute to much
better social services, much lower crime and unrest, better paved roads,
free medical care, etc.

LOL. Right wingers are psychopaths. by definition. The reason
why humans became the most powerful beings on Earrth is because their
innate socialism (the willingness to share, to help others even if it
meant suffering a bit) was stronger than their egoism.
It's impossible to convince a right winger to be "human". His
brain is not capable of being one.
[]'s

PS Bezos never produced anything in his life. He just passed
on other people's goods and took a very large cut. He also pays the
smallest salaries possible. Rather a bad example of someone that
should continue evading tax.

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

    The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
    Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
    []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred solution
to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really need? For what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent over half of
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the problem of
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-ditching-
california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%, typically pay
between 40-50% of the state’s personal income tax revenue."

I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise their upper
level tax rates.

Post by AMuzi
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to
live on.”
Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to put off
buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild (whose taste
they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway). Taxing the poorer
people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.
So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries with far,
far less income disparity. I believe those policies contribute to much
better social services, much lower crime and unrest, better paved roads,
free medical care, etc.

LOL. Right wingers are psychopaths. by definition. The reason
why humans became the most powerful beings on Earrth is because their
innate socialism (the willingness to share, to help others even if it
meant suffering a bit) was stronger than their egoism.
It's impossible to convince a right winger to be "human". His
brain is not capable of being one.
[]'s
PS Bezos never produced anything in his life. He just passed
on other people's goods and took a very large cut. He also pays the
smallest salaries possible. Rather a bad example of someone that
should continue evading tax.

What nonsense. Communalism exists among some of the least developed
forms of life.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

    The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
    Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
    []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred solution
to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really need? For what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent over half of
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the problem of
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-ditching-
california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%, typically pay
between 40-50% of the state?s personal income tax revenue."

I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise their upper
level tax rates.

Post by AMuzi
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but ?Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything?all she had to
live on.?
Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to put off
buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild (whose taste
they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway). Taxing the poorer
people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.
So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries with far,
far less income disparity. I believe those policies contribute to much
better social services, much lower crime and unrest, better paved roads,
free medical care, etc.

LOL. Right wingers are psychopaths. by definition. The reason
why humans became the most powerful beings on Earrth is because their
innate socialism (the willingness to share, to help others even if it
meant suffering a bit) was stronger than their egoism.
It's impossible to convince a right winger to be "human". His
brain is not capable of being one.
[]'s
PS Bezos never produced anything in his life. He just passed
on other people's goods and took a very large cut. He also pays the
smallest salaries possible. Rather a bad example of someone that
should continue evading tax.

What nonsense. Communalism exists among some of the least developed
forms of life.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

And the countries that are? Russia is essentially a dictatorship see also
North Korea, China is as ever bit more complicated.
Most of European countries and political systems have a healthy dose of
socialism which is rather different to Communism which frankly is kinda
dead as idea.
Roger Merriman

I didn't reference communism or countries. What I said was that
communalism exists among some of the least developed forms of life.
Ants and bees are communalistic and they are not particularly powerful
forms of life. More problamatic than powerful.

In my opinion, the reason that humans rose to our place on the food
chain is because of our individualistic need to better ourselves and
our situation.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[Rolf Mantel]

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

    The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
    Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
    []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred solution
to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really need? For what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent over half of
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the problem of
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-ditching-
california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%, typically pay
between 40-50% of the state?s personal income tax revenue."

I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise their upper
level tax rates.

Post by AMuzi
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but ?Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything?all she had to
live on.?
Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to put off
buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild (whose taste
they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway). Taxing the poorer
people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.
So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries with far,
far less income disparity. I believe those policies contribute to much
better social services, much lower crime and unrest, better paved roads,
free medical care, etc.

LOL. Right wingers are psychopaths. by definition. The reason
why humans became the most powerful beings on Earrth is because their
innate socialism (the willingness to share, to help others even if it
meant suffering a bit) was stronger than their egoism.
It's impossible to convince a right winger to be "human". His
brain is not capable of being one.
[]'s
PS Bezos never produced anything in his life. He just passed
on other people's goods and took a very large cut. He also pays the
smallest salaries possible. Rather a bad example of someone that
should continue evading tax.

What nonsense. Communalism exists among some of the least developed
forms of life.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

And the countries that are? Russia is essentially a dictatorship see also
North Korea, China is as ever bit more complicated.
Most of European countries and political systems have a healthy dose of
socialism which is rather different to Communism which frankly is kinda
dead as idea.
Roger Merriman

I didn't reference communism or countries. What I said was that
communalism exists among some of the least developed forms of life.
Ants and bees are communalistic and they are not particularly powerful
forms of life. More problamatic than powerful.
In my opinion, the reason that humans rose to our place on the food
chain is because of our individualistic need to better ourselves and
our situation.

In my opinion, this is complete BS. Tigers, lions and bears rose to
their position in the food chain due to individualistic behavior.

Humans reached their position by optimizing the social skills of
learning and communication. One Human cannot kill a bear without being
taught how to (make and) use traps or weapons.

[Catrike Ryder]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 16:37:53 +0100, Rolf Mantel

Post by Rolf Mantel

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

    The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
    Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
    []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred solution
to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really need? For what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent over half of
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the problem of
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-ditching-
california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%, typically pay
between 40-50% of the state?s personal income tax revenue."

I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise their upper
level tax rates.

Post by AMuzi
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but ?Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything?all she had to
live on.?
Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to put off
buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild (whose taste
they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway). Taxing the poorer
people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.
So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries with far,
far less income disparity. I believe those policies contribute to much
better social services, much lower crime and unrest, better paved roads,
free medical care, etc.

LOL. Right wingers are psychopaths. by definition. The reason
why humans became the most powerful beings on Earrth is because their
innate socialism (the willingness to share, to help others even if it
meant suffering a bit) was stronger than their egoism.
It's impossible to convince a right winger to be "human". His
brain is not capable of being one.
[]'s
PS Bezos never produced anything in his life. He just passed
on other people's goods and took a very large cut. He also pays the
smallest salaries possible. Rather a bad example of someone that
should continue evading tax.

What nonsense. Communalism exists among some of the least developed
forms of life.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

And the countries that are? Russia is essentially a dictatorship see also
North Korea, China is as ever bit more complicated.
Most of European countries and political systems have a healthy dose of
socialism which is rather different to Communism which frankly is kinda
dead as idea.
Roger Merriman

I didn't reference communism or countries. What I said was that
communalism exists among some of the least developed forms of life.
Ants and bees are communalistic and they are not particularly powerful
forms of life. More problamatic than powerful.
In my opinion, the reason that humans rose to our place on the food
chain is because of our individualistic need to better ourselves and
our situation.

In my opinion, this is complete BS. Tigers, lions and bears rose to
their position in the food chain due to individualistic behavior.
Humans reached their position by optimizing the social skills of
learning and communication. One Human cannot kill a bear without being
taught how to (make and) use traps or weapons.

Social skills were important, but social skills and other skills were
developed because individual human beings endeavored to improve their
lifestyle. Tigers, lions and bears don't sit around and ponder their
lifestyle.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[Zen Cycle]

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

     The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
     Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
     []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred solution
to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really
need? For
what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent over half of
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the problem of
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-ditching-
california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%, typically pay
between 40-50% of the state?s personal income tax revenue."

I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise their upper
level tax rates.

Post by AMuzi
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but ?Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything?all she had to
live on.?
Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to put off
buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild (whose taste
they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway). Taxing the poorer
people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.
So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries with far,
far less income disparity. I believe those policies contribute to much
better social services, much lower crime and unrest, better paved roads,
free medical care, etc.

LOL. Right wingers are psychopaths. by definition. The reason
why humans became the most powerful beings on Earrth is because their
innate socialism (the willingness to share, to help others even if it
meant suffering a bit) was stronger than their egoism.
It's impossible to convince a right winger to be "human". His
brain is not capable of being one.
[]'s
PS Bezos never produced anything in his life. He just passed
on other people's goods and took a very large cut. He also pays the
smallest salaries possible. Rather a bad example of someone that
should continue evading tax.

What nonsense. Communalism exists among some of the least developed
forms of life.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

And the countries that are? Russia is essentially a dictatorship see also
North Korea, China is as ever bit more complicated.
Most of European countries and political systems have a healthy dose of
socialism which is rather different to Communism which frankly is kinda
dead as idea.
Roger Merriman

I didn't reference communism or countries. What I said was that
communalism exists among some of the least developed forms of life.
Ants and bees are communalistic and they are not particularly powerful
forms of life. More problamatic than powerful.
In my opinion, the reason that humans rose to our place on the food
chain is because of our individualistic need to better ourselves and
our situation.

In my opinion, this is complete BS.  Tigers, lions and bears rose to
their position in the food chain due to individualistic behavior.
Humans reached their position by optimizing the social skills of
learning and communication.  One Human cannot kill a bear without being
taught how to (make and) use traps or weapons.

+1

trike has been spouting that nonsense since he first showed up here -
complete bullshit.

[Zen Cycle]

Post by Catrike Ryder
In my opinion, the reason that humans rose to our place on the food
chain is because of our individualistic need to better ourselves and
our situation.

Your rabid individualism has obviously stunted your education. Don't
expect that many will value your totally uneducated opinions.

Interpretation varies.
Mr Tricycle has a point, and a very good one at that.

Too bad it doesn't sand up to any rational scrutiny.

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by Catrike Ryder
In my opinion, the reason that humans rose to our place
on the food
chain is because of our individualistic need to better
ourselves and
our situation.

Your rabid individualism has obviously stunted your
education. Don't expect that many will value your totally
uneducated opinions.

Interpretation varies.
Mr Tricycle has a point, and a very good one at that.

 Too bad it doesn't sand up to any rational scrutiny.

Why have a social structure if the sharp guys can't
manipulate it? That's the whole point!

Every social structure I know had a hierachy. The "leaders" proclaim
equality or equety or some similar nonsense, but there's always
winners and losers.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Catrike Ryder
In my opinion, the reason that humans rose to our place on the food
chain is because of our individualistic need to better ourselves and
our situation.

Your rabid individualism has obviously stunted your education. Don't
expect that many will value your totally uneducated opinions.

Interpretation varies.
Mr Tricycle has a point, and a very good one at that.

I suggest a test. Put Mr. Tricycle out in the wilderness all alone. I
predict he won't better himself or his situation. In fact, I predict he
won't survive long.

OTOH, human beings working cooperatively have built entire civilizations.

[Catrike Ryder]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 11:30:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
In my opinion, the reason that humans rose to our place on the food
chain is because of our individualistic need to better ourselves and
our situation.

Your rabid individualism has obviously stunted your education. Don't
expect that many will value your totally uneducated opinions.

Unlike you, I don't much care about strangers valuing my opinions, and
I know that my family and friends do value them. Apparently, my former
employers did also, as did the people at the assisted living homes
where I volunteered. Both management and residents.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 11:30:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
In my opinion, the reason that humans rose to our place on the food
chain is because of our individualistic need to better ourselves and
our situation.

Your rabid individualism has obviously stunted your education. Don't
expect that many will value your totally uneducated opinions.

Unlike you, I don't much care about strangers valuing my opinions...

:-) Funny thing! I don't care whether you value my opinions!

[AMuzi]

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 11:30:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
In my opinion, the reason that humans rose to our place
on the food
chain is because of our individualistic need to better
ourselves and
our situation.

Your rabid individualism has obviously stunted your
education. Don't
expect that many will value your totally uneducated
opinions.

Unlike you, I don't much care about strangers valuing my
opinions...

:-)  Funny thing! I don't care whether you value my opinions!

Would you look at that!
We all agree.

Kumbaya right here on RBT!

[Catrike Ryder]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 16:42:49 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 11:30:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
In my opinion, the reason that humans rose to our place on the food
chain is because of our individualistic need to better ourselves and
our situation.

Your rabid individualism has obviously stunted your education. Don't
expect that many will value your totally uneducated opinions.

Unlike you, I don't much care about strangers valuing my opinions...

:-) Funny thing! I don't care whether you value my opinions!

Funny thing, I don't care that you don't care whether I value your
opinions.

But then I ask myself, why are you always complaining about them?

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[Shadow]

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

    The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
    Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
    []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred solution
to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really need? For what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent over half of
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the problem of
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-ditching-
california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%, typically pay
between 40-50% of the state?s personal income tax revenue."

I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise their upper
level tax rates.

Post by AMuzi
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but ?Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything?all she had to
live on.?
Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to put off
buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild (whose taste
they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway). Taxing the poorer
people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.
So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries with far,
far less income disparity. I believe those policies contribute to much
better social services, much lower crime and unrest, better paved roads,
free medical care, etc.

LOL. Right wingers are psychopaths. by definition. The reason
why humans became the most powerful beings on Earrth is because their
innate socialism (the willingness to share, to help others even if it
meant suffering a bit) was stronger than their egoism.
It's impossible to convince a right winger to be "human". His
brain is not capable of being one.
[]'s
PS Bezos never produced anything in his life. He just passed
on other people's goods and took a very large cut. He also pays the
smallest salaries possible. Rather a bad example of someone that
should continue evading tax.

What nonsense. Communalism exists among some of the least developed
forms of life.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

And the countries that are? Russia is essentially a dictatorship see also
North Korea, China is as ever bit more complicated.

And none are socialist. Thank you for examples of countries
Americans are brainwashed into thinking are "socialist".

North Korea is a military dictatorship, Russia is capitalist
but an oligarchy and China is also capitalist with a mixture of
military and political leaders.
Neither China or N. Korea are democracies. No "demo" elect the
government.

Most of European countries and political systems have a healthy dose of
socialism

..... left over from the welfare states of the 60's and 70's
....

which is rather different to Communism which frankly is kinda
dead as idea.

Communism is just another form of dictatorship. I don't think
anyone supports that, other than the leaders. The Ukraine comes to
mind. What was the result of their last elections? They didn't have
any because the "leader" didn't like the poll results?
Oh. Sounds like they are no longer a democracy either.
[]

[Shadow]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 07:12:09 -0500, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

    The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
    Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
    []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred solution
to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really need? For what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent over half of
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the problem of
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-ditching-
california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%, typically pay
between 40-50% of the state’s personal income tax revenue."

I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise their upper
level tax rates.

Post by AMuzi
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to
live on.”
Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to put off
buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild (whose taste
they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway). Taxing the poorer
people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.
So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries with far,
far less income disparity. I believe those policies contribute to much
better social services, much lower crime and unrest, better paved roads,
free medical care, etc.

LOL. Right wingers are psychopaths. by definition. The reason
why humans became the most powerful beings on Earrth is because their
innate socialism (the willingness to share, to help others even if it
meant suffering a bit) was stronger than their egoism.
It's impossible to convince a right winger to be "human". His
brain is not capable of being one.
[]'s
PS Bezos never produced anything in his life. He just passed
on other people's goods and took a very large cut. He also pays the
smallest salaries possible. Rather a bad example of someone that
should continue evading tax.

What nonsense. Communalism exists among some of the least developed
forms of life.

I have no idea what communalism means. Wikipedia says "Not to
be confused with Communism or Communitarianism.". And then goes on to
explain that communism is a dictatorship and communitarianism in a
right wing (conservative) form of government. Both are bad.

I was talking about socialism. (which in a democracy would be
social democracy). What was prevalent during the "baby Boomers" era.
In the 60's and 70's civilized countries spent more than 50%
of their total resources on the welfare state. It was the best era to
be alive.
No unemployment, good salaries, no worries about the future,
cheap (usually subsidized) housing and transport, good quality state
schooling and medical care. Holidays and bonuses were expected. It was
one of the most productive phases (both intellectually and in actual
products) in the last 100 years.
Of course, if you lived in a barbaric country, you would not
have known that. I forgive you. Not your fault.
[]'s

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by Shadow
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 07:12:09 -0500, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

    The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
    Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
    []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred solution
to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really need? For what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent over half of
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the problem of
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-ditching-
california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%, typically pay
between 40-50% of the state’s personal income tax revenue."

I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise their upper
level tax rates.

Post by AMuzi
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to
live on.”
Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to put off
buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild (whose taste
they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway). Taxing the poorer
people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.
So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries with far,
far less income disparity. I believe those policies contribute to much
better social services, much lower crime and unrest, better paved roads,
free medical care, etc.

LOL. Right wingers are psychopaths. by definition. The reason
why humans became the most powerful beings on Earrth is because their
innate socialism (the willingness to share, to help others even if it
meant suffering a bit) was stronger than their egoism.
It's impossible to convince a right winger to be "human". His
brain is not capable of being one.
[]'s
PS Bezos never produced anything in his life. He just passed
on other people's goods and took a very large cut. He also pays the
smallest salaries possible. Rather a bad example of someone that
should continue evading tax.

What nonsense. Communalism exists among some of the least developed
forms of life.

I have no idea what communalism means. Wikipedia says "Not to
be confused with Communism or Communitarianism.". And then goes on to
explain that communism is a dictatorship and communitarianism in a
right wing (conservative) form of government. Both are bad.
I was talking about socialism. (which in a democracy would be
social democracy). What was prevalent during the "baby Boomers" era.
In the 60's and 70's civilized countries spent more than 50%
of their total resources on the welfare state. It was the best era to
be alive.
No unemployment, good salaries, no worries about the future,
cheap (usually subsidized) housing and transport, good quality state
schooling and medical care. Holidays and bonuses were expected. It was
one of the most productive phases (both intellectually and in actual
products) in the last 100 years.
Of course, if you lived in a barbaric country, you would not
have known that. I forgive you. Not your fault.
[]'s

Communalism is simply the oppoite of individualism. Socialism and
communism are both communalistic structures.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[Shadow]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 13:31:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Shadow
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 07:12:09 -0500, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

    The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
    Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
    []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred solution
to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really need? For what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent over half of
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the problem of
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-ditching-
california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%, typically pay
between 40-50% of the state’s personal income tax revenue."

I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise their upper
level tax rates.

Post by AMuzi
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to
live on.”
Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to put off
buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild (whose taste
they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway). Taxing the poorer
people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.
So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries with far,
far less income disparity. I believe those policies contribute to much
better social services, much lower crime and unrest, better paved roads,
free medical care, etc.

LOL. Right wingers are psychopaths. by definition. The reason
why humans became the most powerful beings on Earrth is because their
innate socialism (the willingness to share, to help others even if it
meant suffering a bit) was stronger than their egoism.
It's impossible to convince a right winger to be "human". His
brain is not capable of being one.
[]'s
PS Bezos never produced anything in his life. He just passed
on other people's goods and took a very large cut. He also pays the
smallest salaries possible. Rather a bad example of someone that
should continue evading tax.

What nonsense. Communalism exists among some of the least developed
forms of life.

I have no idea what communalism means. Wikipedia says "Not to
be confused with Communism or Communitarianism.". And then goes on to
explain that communism is a dictatorship and communitarianism in a
right wing (conservative) form of government. Both are bad.
I was talking about socialism. (which in a democracy would be
social democracy). What was prevalent during the "baby Boomers" era.
In the 60's and 70's civilized countries spent more than 50%
of their total resources on the welfare state. It was the best era to
be alive.
No unemployment, good salaries, no worries about the future,
cheap (usually subsidized) housing and transport, good quality state
schooling and medical care. Holidays and bonuses were expected. It was
one of the most productive phases (both intellectually and in actual
products) in the last 100 years.
Of course, if you lived in a barbaric country, you would not
have known that. I forgive you. Not your fault.
[]'s

Communalism is simply the oppoite of individualism. Socialism and
communism are both communalistic structures.

Individualism must be a nightmare. Every individual lives by
his own laws, takes what he needs, decides how much tax he should pay,
decides what services he has a right to, decides whether another
citizen has the right to live or die. Food and shelter are decided on
"who got there first and has the biggest gun"
You sure there are people that support that? I mean, people
that are still free on the streets and not locked up in an asylum?
Oh wait. USA=>no public healthcare. The psychotic ARE free to
roam the streets.
[]'s

[AMuzi]

Post by Shadow
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 13:31:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Shadow
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 07:12:09 -0500, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

    The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
    Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
    []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred solution
to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really need? For what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent over half of
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the problem of
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-ditching-
california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%, typically pay
between 40-50% of the state’s personal income tax revenue."

I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise their upper
level tax rates.

Post by AMuzi
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to
live on.”
Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to put off
buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild (whose taste
they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway). Taxing the poorer
people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.
So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries with far,
far less income disparity. I believe those policies contribute to much
better social services, much lower crime and unrest, better paved roads,
free medical care, etc.

LOL. Right wingers are psychopaths. by definition. The reason
why humans became the most powerful beings on Earrth is because their
innate socialism (the willingness to share, to help others even if it
meant suffering a bit) was stronger than their egoism.
It's impossible to convince a right winger to be "human". His
brain is not capable of being one.
[]'s
PS Bezos never produced anything in his life. He just passed
on other people's goods and took a very large cut. He also pays the
smallest salaries possible. Rather a bad example of someone that
should continue evading tax.

What nonsense. Communalism exists among some of the least developed
forms of life.

I have no idea what communalism means. Wikipedia says "Not to
be confused with Communism or Communitarianism.". And then goes on to
explain that communism is a dictatorship and communitarianism in a
right wing (conservative) form of government. Both are bad.
I was talking about socialism. (which in a democracy would be
social democracy). What was prevalent during the "baby Boomers" era.
In the 60's and 70's civilized countries spent more than 50%
of their total resources on the welfare state. It was the best era to
be alive.
No unemployment, good salaries, no worries about the future,
cheap (usually subsidized) housing and transport, good quality state
schooling and medical care. Holidays and bonuses were expected. It was
one of the most productive phases (both intellectually and in actual
products) in the last 100 years.
Of course, if you lived in a barbaric country, you would not
have known that. I forgive you. Not your fault.
[]'s

Communalism is simply the oppoite of individualism. Socialism and
communism are both communalistic structures.

Individualism must be a nightmare. Every individual lives by
his own laws, takes what he needs, decides how much tax he should pay,
decides what services he has a right to, decides whether another
citizen has the right to live or die. Food and shelter are decided on
"who got there first and has the biggest gun"
You sure there are people that support that? I mean, people
that are still free on the streets and not locked up in an asylum?
Oh wait. USA=>no public healthcare. The psychotic ARE free to
roam the streets.
[]'s

heh heh you have a very active imagination. And not much
background in philosophy.

[Zen Cycle]

Post by Shadow
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 13:31:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Shadow
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 07:12:09 -0500, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

    The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
    Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
    []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred solution
to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really need? For what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent over half of
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the problem of
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-ditching-
california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%, typically pay
between 40-50% of the state’s personal income tax revenue."

I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise their upper
level tax rates.

Post by AMuzi
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to
live on.”
Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to put off
buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild (whose taste
they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway). Taxing the poorer
people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.
So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries with far,
far less income disparity. I believe those policies contribute to much
better social services, much lower crime and unrest, better paved roads,
free medical care, etc.

LOL. Right wingers are psychopaths. by definition. The reason
why humans became the most powerful beings on Earrth is because their
innate socialism (the willingness to share, to help others even if it
meant suffering a bit) was stronger than their egoism.
It's impossible to convince a right winger to be "human". His
brain is not capable of being one.
[]'s
PS Bezos never produced anything in his life. He just passed
on other people's goods and took a very large cut. He also pays the
smallest salaries possible. Rather a bad example of someone that
should continue evading tax.

What nonsense. Communalism exists among some of the least developed
forms of life.

I have no idea what communalism means. Wikipedia says "Not to
be confused with Communism or Communitarianism.". And then goes on to
explain that communism is a dictatorship and communitarianism in a
right wing (conservative) form of government. Both are bad.
I was talking about socialism. (which in a democracy would be
social democracy). What was prevalent during the "baby Boomers" era.
In the 60's and 70's civilized countries spent more than 50%
of their total resources on the welfare state. It was the best era to
be alive.
No unemployment, good salaries, no worries about the future,
cheap (usually subsidized) housing and transport, good quality state
schooling and medical care. Holidays and bonuses were expected. It was
one of the most productive phases (both intellectually and in actual
products) in the last 100 years.
Of course, if you lived in a barbaric country, you would not
have known that. I forgive you. Not your fault.
[]'s

Communalism is simply the oppoite of individualism. Socialism and
communism are both communalistic structures.

Individualism must be a nightmare. Every individual lives by
his own laws, takes what he needs, decides how much tax he should pay,
decides what services he has a right to, decides whether another
citizen has the right to live or die. Food and shelter are decided on
"who got there first and has the biggest gun"
You sure there are people that support that? I mean, people
that are still free on the streets and not locked up in an asylum?
Oh wait. USA=>no public healthcare. The psychotic ARE free to
roam the streets.
[]'s

Correction: The psychotic ARE 𝗳⃥𝗿⃥𝗲⃥𝗲⃥ left to roam the streets.

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by Shadow
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 13:31:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Shadow
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 07:12:09 -0500, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

    The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
    Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
    []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred solution
to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really need? For what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent over half of
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the problem of
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-ditching-
california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%, typically pay
between 40-50% of the state’s personal income tax revenue."

I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise their upper
level tax rates.

Post by AMuzi
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to
live on.”
Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to put off
buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild (whose taste
they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway). Taxing the poorer
people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.
So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries with far,
far less income disparity. I believe those policies contribute to much
better social services, much lower crime and unrest, better paved roads,
free medical care, etc.

LOL. Right wingers are psychopaths. by definition. The reason
why humans became the most powerful beings on Earrth is because their
innate socialism (the willingness to share, to help others even if it
meant suffering a bit) was stronger than their egoism.
It's impossible to convince a right winger to be "human". His
brain is not capable of being one.
[]'s
PS Bezos never produced anything in his life. He just passed
on other people's goods and took a very large cut. He also pays the
smallest salaries possible. Rather a bad example of someone that
should continue evading tax.

What nonsense. Communalism exists among some of the least developed
forms of life.

I have no idea what communalism means. Wikipedia says "Not to
be confused with Communism or Communitarianism.". And then goes on to
explain that communism is a dictatorship and communitarianism in a
right wing (conservative) form of government. Both are bad.
I was talking about socialism. (which in a democracy would be
social democracy). What was prevalent during the "baby Boomers" era.
In the 60's and 70's civilized countries spent more than 50%
of their total resources on the welfare state. It was the best era to
be alive.
No unemployment, good salaries, no worries about the future,
cheap (usually subsidized) housing and transport, good quality state
schooling and medical care. Holidays and bonuses were expected. It was
one of the most productive phases (both intellectually and in actual
products) in the last 100 years.
Of course, if you lived in a barbaric country, you would not
have known that. I forgive you. Not your fault.
[]'s

Communalism is simply the oppoite of individualism. Socialism and
communism are both communalistic structures.

Individualism must be a nightmare. Every individual lives by
his own laws, takes what he needs, decides how much tax he should pay,
decides what services he has a right to, decides whether another
citizen has the right to live or die. Food and shelter are decided on
"who got there first and has the biggest gun"
You sure there are people that support that? I mean, people
that are still free on the streets and not locked up in an asylum?
Oh wait. USA=>no public healthcare. The psychotic ARE free to
roam the streets.
[]'s

So many people have no idea what individualism is.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[AMuzi]

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Shadow
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 13:31:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Shadow
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 07:12:09 -0500, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

    The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
    Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
    []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred solution
to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really need? For what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent over half of
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the problem of
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-ditching-
california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%, typically pay
between 40-50% of the state’s personal income tax revenue."

I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise their upper
level tax rates.

Post by AMuzi
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to
live on.”
Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to put off
buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild (whose taste
they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway). Taxing the poorer
people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.
So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries with far,
far less income disparity. I believe those policies contribute to much
better social services, much lower crime and unrest, better paved roads,
free medical care, etc.

LOL. Right wingers are psychopaths. by definition. The reason
why humans became the most powerful beings on Earrth is because their
innate socialism (the willingness to share, to help others even if it
meant suffering a bit) was stronger than their egoism.
It's impossible to convince a right winger to be "human". His
brain is not capable of being one.
[]'s
PS Bezos never produced anything in his life. He just passed
on other people's goods and took a very large cut. He also pays the
smallest salaries possible. Rather a bad example of someone that
should continue evading tax.

What nonsense. Communalism exists among some of the least developed
forms of life.

I have no idea what communalism means. Wikipedia says "Not to
be confused with Communism or Communitarianism.". And then goes on to
explain that communism is a dictatorship and communitarianism in a
right wing (conservative) form of government. Both are bad.
I was talking about socialism. (which in a democracy would be
social democracy). What was prevalent during the "baby Boomers" era.
In the 60's and 70's civilized countries spent more than 50%
of their total resources on the welfare state. It was the best era to
be alive.
No unemployment, good salaries, no worries about the future,
cheap (usually subsidized) housing and transport, good quality state
schooling and medical care. Holidays and bonuses were expected. It was
one of the most productive phases (both intellectually and in actual
products) in the last 100 years.
Of course, if you lived in a barbaric country, you would not
have known that. I forgive you. Not your fault.
[]'s

Communalism is simply the oppoite of individualism. Socialism and
communism are both communalistic structures.

Individualism must be a nightmare. Every individual lives by
his own laws, takes what he needs, decides how much tax he should pay,
decides what services he has a right to, decides whether another
citizen has the right to live or die. Food and shelter are decided on
"who got there first and has the biggest gun"
You sure there are people that support that? I mean, people
that are still free on the streets and not locked up in an asylum?
Oh wait. USA=>no public healthcare. The psychotic ARE free to
roam the streets.
[]'s

So many people have no idea what individualism is.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

You and I and Ayn Rand at least.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

     The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
     Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
     []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred solution
to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really need? For what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent over half of
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the problem of
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-ditching-
california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%, typically pay
between 40-50% of the state’s personal income tax revenue."

I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise their upper
level tax rates.

Post by AMuzi
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to
live on.”
Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to put off
buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild (whose taste
they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway). Taxing the poorer
people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.
So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries with far,
far less income disparity. I believe those policies contribute to much
better social services, much lower crime and unrest, better paved roads,
free medical care, etc.

    LOL. Right wingers are psychopaths. by definition. The reason
why humans became the most powerful beings on Earrth is because their
innate socialism (the willingness to share, to help others even if it
meant suffering a bit) was stronger than their egoism.
    It's impossible to convince a right winger to be "human". His
brain is not capable of being one.
    []'s
    PS Bezos never produced anything in his life. He just passed
on other people's goods and took a very large cut. He also pays the
smallest salaries possible. Rather a bad example of someone that
should continue evading tax.

Humans do organize and create language, universally. You're right on
that. But dramatic increases in prosperity, invention, development and
human flourishing generally result from private property rights and
individual effort.

Strongly progressive tax systems - that is, much higher taxes on the
very wealthy - do not deter individual effort. They do not materially
hinder private property rights. People in (e.g.) New Zealand are not
worried that their homes will be taken.

And speaking of that issue, which is the most important private property
issue: What developed country is most likely to see a citizen's home
taken from them?

I suspect it's the U.S. One major cause of homelessness is personal
bankruptcy, caused by catastrophic medical fees.

How much would Elon Musk have to pay in taxes to make him homeless?

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

     The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
     Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
     []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred solution
to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really need?
For
what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent over half of
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the problem of
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans- ditching-
california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%, typically pay
between 40-50% of the state’s personal income tax revenue."

I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise their upper
level tax rates.

Post by AMuzi
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything— all she had to
live on.”
Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to put off
buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild (whose taste
they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway). Taxing the poorer
people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.
So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries with far,
far less income disparity. I believe those policies contribute to much
better social services, much lower crime and unrest, better paved roads,
free medical care, etc.

    LOL. Right wingers are psychopaths. by definition. The reason
why humans became the most powerful beings on Earrth is because their
innate socialism (the willingness to share, to help others even if it
meant suffering a bit) was stronger than their egoism.
    It's impossible to convince a right winger to be "human". His
brain is not capable of being one.
    []'s
    PS Bezos never produced anything in his life. He just passed
on other people's goods and took a very large cut. He also pays the
smallest salaries possible. Rather a bad example of someone that
should continue evading tax.

Humans do organize and create language, universally. You're right on
that. But dramatic increases in prosperity, invention, development
and human flourishing generally result from private property rights
and individual effort.

Strongly progressive tax systems - that is, much higher taxes on the
very wealthy - do not deter individual effort. They do not materially
hinder private property rights. People in (e.g.) New Zealand are not
worried that their homes will be taken.
And speaking of that issue, which is the most important private
property issue: What developed country is most likely to see a
citizen's home taken from them?
I suspect it's the U.S.  One major cause of homelessness is personal
bankruptcy, caused by catastrophic medical fees.
How much would Elon Musk have to pay in taxes to make him homeless?

It is not and that flawed analysis is why LA, after literally billions
wasted on 'homeless' has more than ever.

It's hard to find data, but if not a major cause, medical debt is often
a contributor. "At the Community Economic Defense Project, or CEDP, a
Denver nonprofit that helps people facing eviction or home foreclosure,
about two-thirds of clients have medical debt, an informal survey by KFF
Health News and the organization suggests. Close to half of the nearly
70 people surveyed said medical debt played a role in their housing
issue, with about 1 in 6 saying it was a major factor."

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/09/11/1198534328/medical-debt-housing-security-homelessness

Bums want alcohol and dope. They do not want shelter, or food, or
anything else until or unless alcohol and dope are plentiful.

Perhaps similarly, it's a mistake to pretend that the majority of
homeless are that way due to addiction.

"Most research shows that around 1/3 of people who are homeless have
problems with alcohol and/or drugs, and around 2/3 of these people have
lifetime histories of drug or alcohol use disorders." Polcin, D. L.
(2016). Co-occurring substance abuse and mental health problems among
homeless persons: suggestions for research and practice. Journal of
social distress and the homeless, 25(1), 1–10.

And note that of the 1/3 with those problems, we can't assess the
direction of causation. It's reasonable to assume that a certain
percentage of the homeless turn to self medication in an attempt to cope
with homelessness.

Every
large city has shelters. Free warm shelters. Bums avoid them as they
universally prohibit dope and alcohol. The bums would rather freeze on
the street.

But the majority of homeless people are not bums on the street.

[AMuzi]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Shadow
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 16:57:39 GMT, cyclintom
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in
California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're
nowhere near them.

     The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and
any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for
driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
     Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your
welfare checks.
     []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your
preferred solution
to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc.
really need? For
what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners
represent over half of
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes,
the problem of
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-
americans- ditching-
california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top
1%, typically pay
between 40-50% of the state’s personal income tax
revenue."

I'd say the solution is for the competing states to
raise their upper
level tax rates.

Post by AMuzi
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting
principle?

How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no
limit?
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow
contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this
poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all
gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything
— all she had to
live on.”
Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may
have to put off
buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite
Rothschild (whose taste
they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway).
Taxing the poorer
people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.
So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous
countries with far,
far less income disparity. I believe those policies
contribute to much
better social services, much lower crime and unrest,
better paved roads,
free medical care, etc.

    LOL. Right wingers are psychopaths. by definition.
The reason
why humans became the most powerful beings on Earrth is
because their
innate socialism (the willingness to share, to help
others even if it
meant suffering a bit) was stronger than their egoism.
    It's impossible to convince a right winger to be
"human". His
brain is not capable of being one.
    []'s
    PS Bezos never produced anything in his life. He
just passed
on other people's goods and took a very large cut. He
also pays the
smallest salaries possible. Rather a bad example of
someone that
should continue evading tax.

Humans do organize and create language, universally.
You're right on that. But dramatic increases in
prosperity, invention, development and human flourishing
generally result from private property rights and
individual effort.

Strongly progressive tax systems - that is, much higher
taxes on the very wealthy - do not deter individual
effort. They do not materially hinder private property
rights. People in (e.g.) New Zealand are not worried that
their homes will be taken.
And speaking of that issue, which is the most important
private property issue: What developed country is most
likely to see a citizen's home taken from them?
I suspect it's the U.S.  One major cause of homelessness
is personal bankruptcy, caused by catastrophic medical fees.
How much would Elon Musk have to pay in taxes to make him
homeless?

It is not and that flawed analysis is why LA, after
literally billions wasted on 'homeless' has more than ever.

It's hard to find data, but if not a major cause, medical
debt is often a contributor. "At the Community Economic
Defense Project, or CEDP, a Denver nonprofit that helps
people facing eviction or home foreclosure, about two-thirds
of clients have medical debt, an informal survey by KFF
Health News and the organization suggests. Close to half of
the nearly 70 people surveyed said medical debt played a
role in their housing issue, with about 1 in 6 saying it was
a major factor."
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-
shots/2023/09/11/1198534328/medical-debt-housing-security-
homelessness

Bums want alcohol and dope. They do not want shelter, or
food, or anything else until or unless alcohol and dope
are plentiful.

Perhaps similarly, it's a mistake to pretend that the
majority of homeless are that way due to addiction.
"Most research shows that around 1/3 of people who are
homeless have problems with alcohol and/or drugs, and around
2/3 of these people have lifetime histories of drug or
alcohol use disorders." Polcin, D. L. (2016). Co-occurring
substance abuse and mental health problems among homeless
persons: suggestions for research and practice. Journal of
social distress and the homeless, 25(1), 1–10.
And note that of the 1/3 with those problems, we can't
assess the direction of causation. It's reasonable to assume
that a certain percentage of the homeless turn to self
medication in an attempt to cope with homelessness.

Every large city has shelters. Free warm shelters. Bums
avoid them as they universally prohibit dope and alcohol.
The bums would rather freeze on the street.

But the majority of homeless people are not bums on the street.

Medical (and other consumer) debt does wreck lives and
that's a serious subject for a different discussion.

Normal people, following a bankruptcy, foreclosure or
whatever, move to more humble dwellings; a rented room,
living room floor of a friend or relative and so on. Was
there anyone deep in debt who ever slept on a sidewalk?
Probably. But that is far from the actual problem of addicts.

And we both skipped over deficient/deviant/dysfunctional
brains. A big problem (to some extent exacerbated with all
sorts of dope besides liquor) as yet unaddressed in our culture.

[AMuzi]

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

    The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
    Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
    []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred solution
to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really need? For what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent over half of
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the problem of
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-ditching-
california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%, typically pay
between 40-50% of the state’s personal income tax revenue."

I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise their upper
level tax rates.

Post by AMuzi
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to
live on.”
Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to put off
buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild (whose taste
they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway). Taxing the poorer
people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.
So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries with far,
far less income disparity. I believe those policies contribute to much
better social services, much lower crime and unrest, better paved roads,
free medical care, etc.

LOL. Right wingers are psychopaths. by definition. The reason
why humans became the most powerful beings on Earrth is because their
innate socialism (the willingness to share, to help others even if it
meant suffering a bit) was stronger than their egoism.
It's impossible to convince a right winger to be "human". His
brain is not capable of being one.
[]'s
PS Bezos never produced anything in his life. He just passed
on other people's goods and took a very large cut. He also pays the
smallest salaries possible. Rather a bad example of someone that
should continue evading tax.

Humans do organize and create language, universally. You're
right on that. But dramatic increases in prosperity,
invention, development and human flourishing generally
result from private property rights and individual effort.

Else North Korea would be more wealthy than Brasil.

[AMuzi]

Post by John B.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

    The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
    Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
    []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred solution
to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really need? For what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent over half of
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the problem of
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-ditching-
california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%, typically pay
between 40-50% of the state’s personal income tax revenue."

I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise their upper
level tax rates.

Post by AMuzi
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to
live on.”
Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to put off
buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild (whose taste
they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway). Taxing the poorer
people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.
So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries with far,
far less income disparity. I believe those policies contribute to much
better social services, much lower crime and unrest, better paved roads,
free medical care, etc.

LOL. Right wingers are psychopaths. by definition. The reason
why humans became the most powerful beings on Earrth is because their
innate socialism (the willingness to share, to help others even if it
meant suffering a bit) was stronger than their egoism.
It's impossible to convince a right winger to be "human". His
brain is not capable of being one.
[]'s
PS Bezos never produced anything in his life. He just passed
on other people's goods and took a very large cut. He also pays the
smallest salaries possible. Rather a bad example of someone that
should continue evading tax.

Humans do organize and create language, universally. You're
right on that. But dramatic increases in prosperity,
invention, development and human flourishing generally
result from private property rights and individual effort.
Else North Korea would be more wealthy than Brasil.

If Einstein had been born in America he would have been the
best flag-saluting moron ever!!!
And he would probably be choir-boy of the decade....
Luckily he was born in Germany and received a GOOD FREE state
education (first in Germany, then in Switzerland).
[]'s
PS I often wondered what Bezos invented. Greed you say? Are
you sure he was not plagiarizing someone else?

Like many of today's ultrawealthy, Mr Bezos made a system,
not a widget. See also Larry Ellison, Bill Gates (OK, he
acquired DOS but made a system to sell it and more), Jeff
Zuckerburg etc.

Even the gargantuan charge card empires; they don't sell the
plastic card, they devised the system. Down to today's
wildly successful Greek shippers. They didn't make money
building ships so much as selling delivery services.

[AMuzi]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Shadow
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 16:57:39 GMT, cyclintom
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in
California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere
near them.

    The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay.
Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any
unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving
without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
    Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare
checks.
    []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your
preferred solution to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc.
really need? For what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the
problem of collecting revenues shows the complex mix of
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-
ditching- california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%,
typically pay between 40-50% of the state’s personal
income tax revenue."

I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise
their upper level tax rates.

Post by AMuzi
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting
principle?

How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing
two tiny coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you,
this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the
others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of
her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”
Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to
put off buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite
Rothschild (whose taste they probably can't reliably
distinguish anyway). Taxing the poorer people means they
have to put off buying a can of soup.
So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries
with far, far less income disparity. I believe those
policies contribute to much better social services, much
lower crime and unrest, better paved roads, free medical
care, etc.

Thanks for making that clear; your worldview about both
morality and values. Which are way out there.

[Zen Cycle]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

    The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
    Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
    []'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred
solution to everything "Tax the rich" ?

It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really need? For what?

You've written that previously.
I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent over half
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the problem of
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans- ditching-
california-163000441.html
Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%, typically pay
between 40-50% of the state’s personal income tax revenue."

I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise their upper
level tax rates.

Post by AMuzi
I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?

How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?
I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
coins, a trivial amount, but “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has
put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of
their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she
had to live on.”
Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to put off
buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild (whose
taste they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway). Taxing the
poorer people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.
So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries with far,
far less income disparity. I believe those policies contribute to much
better social services, much lower crime and unrest, better paved
roads, free medical care, etc.

Thanks for making that clear; your worldview about both morality and
values. Which are way out there.

That's a distance of your own creation.

[Shadow]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
[]'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred
solution to everything "Tax the rich" ?

That'll only solve 99% of the World's problems. Well, 97%, but
I'm an optimist.
[]'s

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Shadow
<about who is responsible for running over cyclists>

Post by cyclintom
This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.

The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
[]'s

Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred
solution to everything "Tax the rich" ?

Well, it's not like any rich people create jobs or buy expensive
equipement.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[cyclintom]

Post by NFN Smith

Post by Frank Krygowski
Some Montana legislators are wanting to make wrong-way riding mandatory.

Mmm treat bikes as pedestrians yup I?m sure that?s going to work!
Roger Merriman

That's really the issue, where the expectation is that a bicycle is a
toy and the rider should be treated as a pedestrian.
For non-riders (or novice riders), especially if they've been trained to
always *walk* facing traffic, there is frequently a fear of the speed of
vehicles approaching from the rear (and not visible) even if the speed
differential is far less than facing traffic.
For the purposes of public policy, this is an ongoing tension that
probably never be resolved, the difference between the bicycle being
regarded as a pedestrian and the bicycle regarded as a vehicle, and for
the latter, where despite the speed differential with motor vehicles,
the bike should have all the rights and responsibilities as a motorist.
When I'm a motorist, it really bothers me to see a bicycle riding in a
bike lane facing the traffic, because I know that if I wanted to be
malicious, I could simply pull into the bike lane. If the road has a
curb, then the cyclist is effectively pinned, where there's no ability
to escape in either direction, whether inability of jumping the curb, or
driving into facing traffic.
Something that I've noticed more recently is the effect of electric
vehicles, both scooters and bikes whose speeds are well in excess of
anything typical to a pedestrian on foot, and still going against
traffic in a bike lane. At that speed, far more dangerous than going
with the traffic.
Also, one further issue is approaching from an unexpected direction and
speed. Years ago, I was exiting a parking lot after dark, and looking
left for motor traffic, before turning right, and just as I was ready to
pull onto the street, and a BMX bike on the sidewalk riding at speed I
would call "decent" (although not excessive). I nearly ran into him,
because I wasn't looking for a vehicle coming from that direction or
speed, and the fact that it was dark (and he had no lights) made it even
harder to see him. And he was annoyed because I hadn't yielded him the
right of way.

I suspect that this will be DOA after a presentation at the hearing by the League of American Bicyclists.